Best Posts


User avatar
Posted by Tiger
09 Apr 2016, 8:06 am

Tiger      
User avatar
     

Posts: 3626
NeoConvict » 08 Apr 2016 4:17 pm wrote:

7th time, the cop over reacted.


They won't listen to that. The lefties prefer absolutes. If you don't destroy that cop's career, you ain't worth living.
-1

Nighthawk's Photo
Posted by Nighthawk
09 Apr 2016, 7:00 pm

Nighthawk      
     

Posts: 3458
ATX 420 » 07 Apr 2016 1:30 am wrote:
Nighthawk » 06 Apr 2016 7:12 pm wrote:

First of all, no, most employers CAN'T afford to pay more, dumbass. Link.

No, Fast-Food Joints Cannot Absorb Cost Increases

Artificially inflating wages would substantially increase fast-food restaurants’ total costs—labor makes up a considerable portion of their budget. Chart 1 shows the financial statements of the average fast-food restaurant in 2013. Labor costs (26 percent) and food and material costs (31 percent) make up the majority of the typical restaurant budget.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the average cook in a fast-food restaurant earned $9.04 an hour in 2013.[2] The SEIU’s push for $15 an hour would consequently raise fast-food wages by at least 66 percent. Paying $15 an hour would raise fast-food restaurants’ total costs by approximately 15 percent.[3]http://www.heritage.org/%7E/media/images/reports/2014/09/ib4272-chart-1-825.ashx

Image

Fast-food restaurants could not pay this additional amount out of their profits. The typical restaurant has a profit margin of just 3 percent before taxes.[4] That works out to approximately $27,000 a year[5]—less than the annual cost of hiring one full-time employee at $15 an hour.[6] In order to raise wages, fast-food restaurants must raise prices.

Secondly, even if companies could "afford" to pay higher wages, that doesn't mean they will pay them, dimwit. I did not ask you where you "wished" the money would come from in your dumb little liberal fantasies. I very clearly asked you were it actually would come from.

Just because there is competition, it does not mean that companies are all going to compete to the point of them all losing money until they all go under, you damn idiot. When the input costs of all companies in a certain competitive industry all go up simultaneously, then they will all have to simultaneously increase their prices as well. For example, have you never noticed that when the global price of crude oil goes up, that the price of gasoline at all the gas stations also go up? Did you think that was just a gigantic coincidence? Why didn't "competition" keep all these gas stations from raising the price of gas, if your dumb little ignorant theory was correct, moron?

Since you clearly have no interest in educating yourself, allow me to do it for you by posting this passage straight from a fantastic economics book-

Economics in One Lesson
It is usually assumed that an increase in wages is gained at the expense of the profits of employers. This may of course happen for short periods or in special circumstances. If wages are forced up in a particular firm, in such competition with others that it cannot raise its prices, the increase will come out of its profits. This is much less likely to happen, however, if the wage increase takes place throughout a whole industry. The industry will in most cases increase its prices and pass the wage increase along to consumers. As these are likely to consist for the most part of workers, they will simply have their real wages reduced by having to pay more for a particular product. It is true that as a result of the increased prices, sales of that industry’s products may fall off, so that volume of profits in the industry will be reduced; but employment and total payrolls in the industry are likely to be reduced by a corresponding amount.


So now that we have definitively established that any extra money in consumer's pockets as a result of a moronic MW law will have to come from ***CONSUMERS***, then how in the holy mother of fuck can consumers have a net increase in money to spend, you unbelievably retarded shit-for-brains?

Even a dull-witted child should be able to see the folly of such a moronic claim. I can't wait to see how you try to spin your way out of this one...

Good luck.



That is a dishonest argument and a stupid ass analogy, why do you have to lie so much?


I am giving you direct links that back up what I am saying, moron. So how the fuck I am supposedly lying? And where is your proof that I am telling these supposed lies?


Of course costs go up a bit, the point is, prices wont go up as much as costs if there is competition.


There is already competition, dimwit! Therefore, the general prices of a given competitive industry are also already likely as low as they can practically go. So when the costs increase across the entire industry, there is no choice but for prices in that industry to increase accordingly, retard.

McDonald's profit margin is 17%, while Chipotle is 11%.. pretty high there. So, in their cases, prices wont be able to go up as much if the other giants have similar profit margins.


Good grief... How the hell can you be this damn clueless? McDonald's corporate makes much of their money from franchise fees, royalties, rents, etc.., not just from selling food to consumers, so their profit margin does really not matter in regards to the MW. You have to look at the profit margins of the individual restaurants, such as the typical franchise restaurant, when analyzing the effects of a moronic MW law. And as the link I provided above very clearly stated-

The typical restaurant has a profit margin of just 3 percent before taxes.

If the profit margin of a McDonald's or similar fast food restaurant itself was really as high as 17%, you would see an unbelievably massive explosion of new restaurants opening all over the place by all the evil, greedy entrepreneurs looking to get filthy rich.

or.. all of a sudden, Burger King, Wendy's.. everyone else's dollar menu would crush McDonald's menu if they thought they could raise the price of a double cheeseburger to $2. So.. it just isnt as simple as tools like you make it out to be.


If they tried to jack their prices unilaterally, without a cost increase that affects the whole industry, you would be correct. But if EVERYONE'S cost goes up, then they will ALL have to raise their prices if they want to stay in business, dunce.

Keep on pushing the agenda of your corporate masters you lemming.


Again, how the hell am I supposedly pushing the agenda of corporations, dolt? The corporations are the ones most capable of absorbing higher MW costs by having higher-skilled workers or by using automation to reduce the number of employees required. Small, non-corporate businesses will not be able to do this as easily and will thus the big corporations will benefit from moronic MW laws by it harming their competition. You think that Walmart, which is one of the big corporations you idiot libs love to complain about, is always pushing for higher MW laws just because they care about the poor little workers and want them to make more money, dipshit? Nope- Link.


H. Lee Scott, Jr., the CEO of Wal-Mart, surprised many by calling for an increase in the minimum wage. And what accolades were heaped on him! The company was even cast in a new role, from the exploiter of workers to the responsible advocate of pro-worker policies.

And how selfless, for who has to pay such higher wages but companies like Wal-Mart? And thus do we see a corporation set aside its business interests on behalf of the long-term interests of society.

The whole thing befuddled Wal-Mart haters as much as it disgusted its free-market defenders.

Ted Kennedy wouldn't go so far as to praise the company, but he did say that "If the CEO of Walmart can call for an increase in the minimum wage, the Republicans should follow suit on behalf of the millions of working men and women living in poverty."

Other lefties just wouldn't believe it. The spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch said that Scott's call for a higher wage floor was "disingenuous and laughable."

And yet, let us think this through. Might there be another reason Wal-Mart would advocate a higher minimum wage?

Before looking at the evidence, let's do some a priori theorizing based on the history of US corporate regulation. Historians such as Robert Higgs, Butler Shaffer, Dominick Armentano, and Gabriel Kolko have chronicled how the rise of business regulation, including intervention in market wages, was pushed by large companies for one main reason: to impose higher costs on smaller competitors.

This is how child labor legislation, mandated pensions, labor union impositions, health and safety regulations, and the entire panoply of business regimentation came about. It was pushed by big businesses that had already absorbed the costs of these practices into their profit margins so as to burden smaller businesses that did not have these practices. Regulation is thus a violent method of competition.

Think of it this way. Let's say you run a retail coffee shop that sells only "fair trade" coffee, which is expensive to acquire, but for which consumers are willing to pay a high price. All is going swimmingly until a competitor shows up and sells unfair coffee that tastes just as good for half the price.

Let's say consumers begin to change their minds about the merit of your "fair trade" coffee and your profits fall. You must make a change to survive. You can compete by offering a wider range of choice. Or you can lobby the local government in the name of "social responsibility" (oh, such high ideals!) to require that all coffee sold in your town be "fair trade."

Who does that benefit? Your company. Who does it hurt? Their company.

Moving from theory to reality, we find that this is precisely what Wal-Mart is up to. The hint comes from the news stories: "Wal-Mart maintains that it pays above the current $5.15 an hour minimum wage to its employees."

Now, most readers might just look at this as a case of leading by example. Would that everyone were as fair as the wonderful Wal-Mart! But a second look suggests another interpretation, namely that it wants to slam its smaller competition, which will be seriously harmed by having to pay more for labor.

The current minimum is $5.15. According to studies, Wal-Mart pays between $8.23 and $9.68 as its national average. That means that the minimum wage could be raised 50% and still not impose higher costs on the company.

Wal-Mart itself makes even more elaborate claims on Walmartfacts.com: "The national average for regular hourly Walmart wages is nearly twice the federal minimum wage, and higher in urban areas." If true, the national minimum could be raised by 100% and leave the company unaffected.

So who would it affect if not Wal-Mart? All of its main competitors. And the truth is that there are millions of businesses that compete with it every day. Many local stores have attempted to copy Wal-Mart's price-competitive model, but face lower costs and can actually thrive.

There are many ways to compete with Wal-Mart. Not all shoppers like sprawling stores. Others like better service with more experts on the floor. Others just hate crowds. But a main way to compete is to hire lower-priced labor. This could mean that your employees are from a "lower" rung on the social ladder, but they too need opportunities. The savings can be reflected in other amenities that Wal-Mart does not offer. There can be non-standardized products otherwise not available. The location might be better. Even prices for goods can be lower.

Even similar stores such as K-Mart can pay lower wages, and that can make the margin of difference. K-Mart pays over a much wider range, as low as $6.75 an hour. A major competitor is mainstream grocery stores, where workers do indeed start at minimum wage. Target too pays starting employees less than Wal-Mart, if the Target Union can be believed.

Now, if Wal-Mart can successfully lobby the government to abolish lower-wage firms, it has taken a huge step toward running out its competition. The effect of requiring other firms to pay wages just as high as theirs is the same as if the company lobbied to force other companies to purchase only in high quantities, to open large stores only, or to stay open 24 hours. By making others do what Wal-Mart does, the company manages to put the squeeze on anyone who would dare vie for its customer base.



So, it looks like YOU are the one pushing the agenda of your corporate masters, and you are just too damn stupid to even realize it, imbecile. Lol...

The smaller places who are having a tough time making ends meet, if people are getting paid more, that is more money going into their pockets so that at least many folks will break even.


But you still have not demonstrated how consumers as a group will have any more money going into their pockets, idiot.

and if you cant stay in business paying a living wage.. so be it.


I swear, it seems like all of you idiot libs have been given the same moronic talking point. I have utterly destroyed that imbecilic claim at least 50 times in the past. Here is another passage from the fantastic economics book I cited above-

Economics in One Lesson
There are a group of people who reply: “Very well; if it is true that the X industry cannot exist except by paying starvation wages, then it will be just as well if the minimum wage puts it out of existence altogether.” But this brave pronouncement overlooks the realities. It overlooks, first of all, that consumers will suffer the loss of that product. It forgets, in the second place, that it is merely condemning the people who worked in that industry to unemployment. And it ignores, finally, that bad as were the wages paid in the X industry, they were the best among all the alternatives that seemed open to the workers in that industry; otherwise the workers would have gone into another. If, therefore, the X industry is driven out of existence by a minimum wage law, then the workers previously employed in that industry will be forced to turn to alternative courses that seemed less attractive to them in the first place. Their competition for jobs will drive down the pay offered even in these alternative occupations. There is no escape from the conclusion that the minimum wage will increase unemployment.

With that said, I do think $15 an hour is a bit much, it needs to be more incremental and I'd strongly support a raise to $10, then talk about $12 a few years down the road.


So what do you propose that we should do with people that can't yet produce $10/hr or $12/hr of value to an employer? How does essentially sentencing them to chronic unemployment where they will not only be making fucking ZERO, they will also not be gaining any experience to improve their situation, supposedly help them, you damn retarded ape? As I said above, apparently you idiot libs don't give a flying shit who you hurt, or how badly you hurt them, as long as you foolishly think you may also be able to hurt some evil rich guys in the process. You evil, twisted, sadistic fucks make me sick. How the hell do you demented pieces of shit even sleep at night?

Because raising the MW does cause a bit of disruption, and raising it to $15 could be an unfair hardship to many businesses. It needs to be more incremental, give those businesses a chance to catch up, and give us a chance to see how the MW is affecting the market. Because when it went to $5.50 to $7.25, it had a pretty neutral impact on the markets, while it put more money in people's hands.


What the fuck do you mean a "neutral impact"? It was not "neutral" to all the people that were unemployed as a result- Link.


Yesterday's September labor market report was lousy by any measure, with 263,000 lost jobs and the jobless rate climbing to 9.8%. But for one group of Americans it was especially awful: the least skilled, especially young workers. Washington will deny the reality, and the media won't make the connection, but one reason for these job losses is the rising minimum wage.

Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers.

Yesterday's September labor market report was lousy by any measure, with 263,000 lost jobs and the jobless rate climbing to 9.8%. But for one group of Americans it was especially awful: the least skilled, especially young workers. Washington will deny the reality, and the media won't make the connection, but one reason for these job losses is the rising minimum wage.

Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers.


Image
The September teen unemployment rate hit 25.9%, the highest rate since World War II and up from 23.8% in July. Some 330,000 teen jobs have vanished in two months. Hardest hit of all: black male teens, whose unemployment rate shot up to a catastrophic 50.4%. It was merely a terrible 39.2% in July.

The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working.

As the minimum wage has risen, the gap between the overall unemployment rate and the teen rate has widened, as it did again last month.


But again, you just don't give a shit about these people, do you? And since it is the blacks that are hit the hardest of all, I bet you racists shiteaters have an especially good laugh at your little Klan rallies, don't you?
-1

User avatar
Posted by NeoConvict
09 Apr 2016, 7:50 pm

NeoConvict       
User avatar
      

Posts: 17338
tech guy » 09 Apr 2016 11:33 am wrote:
CanuckleSandwich » 09 Apr 2016 11:28 am wrote:
Kobia2 » 09 Apr 2016 11:25 am wrote:

You fucking idiot.... The people who reside in Gaza and West Bank today are not descendants of the Philistines... They are Arabs and speak Arabic... The Philistines were known as the Sea Peoples... They migrated to and conquered swaths of lands.. They are not indigenous, and no longer exist as a distinct people.... They were closer to Greek than Arabs...


I think you mistake the Philistines with the Phoenicians. I do agree that Palestinians are not the descendants of the former.


You're both wrong. Do you honestly believe that the Philistines just one day completely vanished from the Levant and left no DNA trace behind? They were absorbed into the present day population through a process of arabization.



They were nomadic Bedouins. No country on the face of the Earth has proven their right to exist more than Israel. Sorry losers, suck it the fuck up and enjoy the fact Israilis give you FAR more freedoms than your Arab brethren. No one in "Palestine" commutes to Egypt or Jordan for work. They commute to Israel.
-1

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
11 Apr 2016, 12:12 am

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9919
Technocrat » 10 Apr 2016 11:36 pm wrote:
Sgt Bilko » 10 Apr 2016 11:16 pm wrote:
Technocrat » 10 Apr 2016 10:44 pm wrote:

Israel should never have been created in the first place, much less as it was originally: an expressly racial state predicated upon a specific religion. Jews were just very vocal and got what they wanted because of the holocaust guilt the world had.

You are an ignorant atheist windbag.

1. The Bible prophesied this happening.
2. Jews were already living there as the majority of residents.
3. It was held by Britain.
4. It was for the ethnic Jews not just Religious ones.
5. The process was started before WWII was started and the war interrupted the process.

WHY DO YOU SPOUT GIBBERISH NONSENSE!!

THIS CONFIRMS YOUR BIGOTRY!!


The Bible predicted nothing happening. Making some vague no-shit statements people read into later doesn't mean anything. Jews were living there. But Israel draw way more that didn't.




Isaiah 66:7-8

Isaiah prophecied that Israel would become a nation again and that it would happen in one day!
Bible passage: Isaiah 66:7-8
Prophet: Isaiah
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 1948
In Isaiah 66:7-8, the prophet foreshadowed the re-birth of Israel, which happened "in one day." The woman giving birth before going into labor represent Israel. This accurately describes what happened on May 14, 1948 - when the Jews declared independence for Israel as a united and sovereign nation for the first time in 2,900 years.
During that same day, the United States issued a statement recognizing Israel's sovereignty. And, only hours beforehand, a United Nations mandate expired, ending British control of the land. During a 24-hour span of time, foreign control of the land of Israel had formally ceased, and Israel had declared its independence, and its independence was acknowledged by other nations. Modern Israel was literally was born in a single day.
In other words: God used what Hitler did during WWII, to bring about one of His end times prophecies!
Isaiah said the birth would take place before there would be labor pains. And that too is precisely what happened. A movement called Zionism began in the 1800s to encourage Jews worldwide to move to Israel, which at that time was called Palestine. Within hours of the declaration of independence in 1948, Israel was attacked by the surrounding countries of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
When reading Isaiah 66:7-8, keep in mind that Israel's status as a sovereign nation was established and reaffirmed during the course of a single day, and that it was born of a movement called Zionism, and that its declaration of independence was not the result of a war but rather the cause of one.

Here is the entire last chapter of Isaiah.

Isaiah 66New International Version (NIV)

Judgment and Hope
66 This is what the Lord says:

“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?
2 Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?”
declares the Lord.
“These are the ones I look on with favor:
those who are humble and contrite in spirit,
and who tremble at my word.
3 But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a person,
and whoever offers a lamb
is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig’s blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense
is like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and they delight in their abominations;
4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and will bring on them what they dread.
For when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, no one listened.
They did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me.”
5 Hear the word of the Lord,
you who tremble at his word:
“Your own people who hate you,
and exclude you because of my name, have said,
‘Let the Lord be glorified,
that we may see your joy!’
Yet they will be put to shame.
6 Hear that uproar from the city,
hear that noise from the temple!
It is the sound of the Lord
repaying his enemies all they deserve.
7 “Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.
8 Who has ever heard of such things?
Who has ever seen things like this?
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation be brought forth in a moment?
Yet no sooner is Zion in labor
than she gives birth to her children.
9 Do I bring to the moment of birth
and not give delivery?” says the Lord.
“Do I close up the womb
when I bring to delivery?” says your God.
10 “Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her,
all you who love her;
rejoice greatly with her,
all you who mourn over her.
11 For you will nurse and be satisfied
at her comforting breasts;
you will drink deeply
and delight in her overflowing abundance.”
12 For this is what the Lord says:

“I will extend peace to her like a river,
and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream;
you will nurse and be carried on her arm
and dandled on her knees.
13 As a mother comforts her child,
so will I comfort you;
and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.”
14 When you see this, your heart will rejoice
and you will flourish like grass;
the hand of the Lord will be made known to his servants,
but his fury will be shown to his foes.
15 See, the Lord is coming with fire,
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For with fire and with his sword
the Lord will execute judgment on all people,
and many will be those slain by the Lord.

PROOF YOU ARE AN IGNORANT ATHEIST WINDBAG!!

YOUR DENIAL OF GOD FORCES YOU INTO THE DISCREDITED EVOLUTION CONCEPT!!
-1

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
11 Apr 2016, 12:13 am

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9919
Technocrat » 10 Apr 2016 11:36 pm wrote:
Sgt Bilko » 10 Apr 2016 11:16 pm wrote:
Technocrat » 10 Apr 2016 10:44 pm wrote:

Israel should never have been created in the first place, much less as it was originally: an expressly racial state predicated upon a specific religion. Jews were just very vocal and got what they wanted because of the holocaust guilt the world had.

You are an ignorant atheist windbag.

1. The Bible prophesied this happening.
2. Jews were already living there as the majority of residents.
3. It was held by Britain.
4. It was for the ethnic Jews not just Religious ones.
5. The process was started before WWII was started and the war interrupted the process.

WHY DO YOU SPOUT GIBBERISH NONSENSE!!

THIS CONFIRMS YOUR BIGOTRY!!


The Bible predicted nothing happening. Making some vague no-shit statements people read into later doesn't mean anything. Jews were living there. But Israel draw way more that didn't.




Isaiah 66:7-8

Isaiah prophecied that Israel would become a nation again and that it would happen in one day!
Bible passage: Isaiah 66:7-8
Prophet: Isaiah
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 1948
In Isaiah 66:7-8, the prophet foreshadowed the re-birth of Israel, which happened "in one day." The woman giving birth before going into labor represent Israel. This accurately describes what happened on May 14, 1948 - when the Jews declared independence for Israel as a united and sovereign nation for the first time in 2,900 years.
During that same day, the United States issued a statement recognizing Israel's sovereignty. And, only hours beforehand, a United Nations mandate expired, ending British control of the land. During a 24-hour span of time, foreign control of the land of Israel had formally ceased, and Israel had declared its independence, and its independence was acknowledged by other nations. Modern Israel was literally was born in a single day.
In other words: God used what Hitler did during WWII, to bring about one of His end times prophecies!
Isaiah said the birth would take place before there would be labor pains. And that too is precisely what happened. A movement called Zionism began in the 1800s to encourage Jews worldwide to move to Israel, which at that time was called Palestine. Within hours of the declaration of independence in 1948, Israel was attacked by the surrounding countries of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
When reading Isaiah 66:7-8, keep in mind that Israel's status as a sovereign nation was established and reaffirmed during the course of a single day, and that it was born of a movement called Zionism, and that its declaration of independence was not the result of a war but rather the cause of one.

Here is the entire last chapter of Isaiah.

Isaiah 66New International Version (NIV)

Judgment and Hope
66 This is what the Lord says:

“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?
2 Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?”
declares the Lord.
“These are the ones I look on with favor:
those who are humble and contrite in spirit,
and who tremble at my word.
3 But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a person,
and whoever offers a lamb
is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig’s blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense
is like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and they delight in their abominations;
4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and will bring on them what they dread.
For when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, no one listened.
They did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me.”
5 Hear the word of the Lord,
you who tremble at his word:
“Your own people who hate you,
and exclude you because of my name, have said,
‘Let the Lord be glorified,
that we may see your joy!’
Yet they will be put to shame.
6 Hear that uproar from the city,
hear that noise from the temple!
It is the sound of the Lord
repaying his enemies all they deserve.
7 “Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.
8 Who has ever heard of such things?
Who has ever seen things like this?
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation be brought forth in a moment?
Yet no sooner is Zion in labor
than she gives birth to her children.
9 Do I bring to the moment of birth
and not give delivery?” says the Lord.
“Do I close up the womb
when I bring to delivery?” says your God.
10 “Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her,
all you who love her;
rejoice greatly with her,
all you who mourn over her.
11 For you will nurse and be satisfied
at her comforting breasts;
you will drink deeply
and delight in her overflowing abundance.”
12 For this is what the Lord says:

“I will extend peace to her like a river,
and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream;
you will nurse and be carried on her arm
and dandled on her knees.
13 As a mother comforts her child,
so will I comfort you;
and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.”
14 When you see this, your heart will rejoice
and you will flourish like grass;
the hand of the Lord will be made known to his servants,
but his fury will be shown to his foes.
15 See, the Lord is coming with fire,
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For with fire and with his sword
the Lord will execute judgment on all people,
and many will be those slain by the Lord.

PROOF YOU ARE AN IGNORANT ATHEIST WINDBAG!!

YOUR DENIAL OF GOD FORCES YOU INTO THE DISCREDITED EVOLUTION CONCEPT!!
-1

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
11 Apr 2016, 1:29 am

Cannonpointer 98% Macho Man
User avatar
98% Macho Man

Posts: 61827
deezer shoove » 10 Apr 2016 7:15 am wrote:
Isn't that like slamming a tent door? Can't be done, idiot.

So, here's the counter to your really stupid analogy:
Why were you shouting "Stay gone, nigger!" at my exit?

We're here again, you dumb motherfucker? And you brought us here...


A faggot defends police brutality on a liberal chat board, and then blames the liberal he's at loggerheads with.

Yup - you're on straight dick, bitch.

deezer shoove » 10 Apr 2016 7:15 am wrote:
What a simple-minded drunk-texter. I'm sure you're funny to you. :wah: :wah: :wah:
Poor little Box O' Whine...

btw
How do you LOWER your count? Try lowering your BAC.
Your family might appreciate it, Farts O'Bloom.
:P

And back to the projections.

Yup. You're a cum guzzling slut, alright - and a crybaby.
-1

User avatar
Posted by WillFranklin
09 Apr 2016, 7:57 pm

Post 09 Apr 2016, 7:57 pm
WillFranklin       
User avatar
      

Posts: 8760


Now you are really getting desperate.

You got nothing, roadshill.
-1

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
13 Apr 2016, 4:21 pm

Cannonpointer 98% Macho Man
User avatar
98% Macho Man

Posts: 61827
golfboy » 13 Apr 2016 4:12 pm wrote:
So why did you say 10 years, and that you would change your position if shown otherwise?
Iran is at least a decade out from a nuke under the current agreement.

You are dishonestly pretending that the west would not react to Iran attempting to break out - which would take them a year IF NO ONE RESPONDED AND IMPEDED THEM. The whole purpose of the inspectors is to alert the appropriate governing bodies in the event that Iran attempts to break out. They WERE a few months away, according to bibi nutsinyourhole. NOW, it would take them a year to produce the materials, EVEN IF NO ONE DID ANYTHING.

It is your dishonest pretense that no one will do anything - that all concerned will twiddle their thumbs while Iran bellies up to the nuke buffet and fills its plate - which is causing your confusion. If one is stupid enough to believe one's own lies, one will be constantly confused, son. So, smarten up.
-1

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
21 Dec 2014, 10:53 pm

Post 21 Dec 2014, 10:53 pm
golfboy       
User avatar
      

Posts: 51289
Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2014 9:51 pm wrote:
golfboy » 21 Dec 2014 9:44 pm wrote:
You voted for Obama, but oppose his policies? No. Sorry. You OWN his policies.


So Larry Craig's toe-tapping is at your door?

That admission. signals moral development - you are becoming a young lady, and no longer a little girl.

There are some things you're going to need to know about your emerging womanhood.

Study up, buttercup.

It's like clockwork. Every time you have your ass handed to you, you start this homophobic slur bullshit.
Loser.
-1

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
22 Dec 2014, 10:48 am

Post 22 Dec 2014, 10:48 am
golfboy       
User avatar
      

Posts: 51289
onlyaladd » 22 Dec 2014 9:44 am wrote:
golfboy » 21 Dec 2014 8:30 pm wrote:
It's pretty hilarious that you believe training people to fight terrorists makes us terrorists.

Hey look everybody. Goof found a bumper sticker slogan. No need to examine the subject just close your eyes and mindlessly repeat it.
Never mind that we armed Bin Laden or dozens of other examples. Just repeat stupidity.

LOL... ^^ This moron thinks it was wrong to help the Afghan people fight a Russian invasion.
No. Really.

America, the Land of the Free, is suppose to do what Obama does: Cover his eyes and ignore Russian aggression.
-1

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
10 Mar 2015, 9:31 am

Post 10 Mar 2015, 9:31 am
golfboy       
User avatar
      

Posts: 51289
bingster » 10 Mar 2015 2:48 am wrote:
golfboy » 10 Mar 2015 12:54 am wrote:
lol... imagine calling the Israeli's terrorists. NO wonder you're a liberal.
Hey man, read a history book. .


ThAT'S THE PROBLEM.... You nimrods read history books written to glorify the US and never criticizes (unless, of course, it criticizes FDR)... Our history is not filled with roses and vanilla smelling melancholy. It's actually a history of the strong beats the shit out of the weak and doesn't give a shit about right or wrong..... Anyone who thinks differently about this country is a verifiable moron......
Another "blame America first" liberal.
Naval gazer.
-1

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
14 Apr 2016, 6:20 am

Cannonpointer 98% Macho Man
User avatar
98% Macho Man

Posts: 61827
golfboy » 12 Apr 2016 7:47 am wrote:
The fact is that Iran WILL have a bomb now, because Obama's deal gives them a clear path that they did not have before.
Thanks for letting us know what uneducated dipshits in Idaho believe, moron.

Now, let's see what PMs in Israel believe. Bibi says Obama's deal will work

Who should we listen to, partisan ass crack? You, or nutsing yayhoo?
-1

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
15 Apr 2016, 9:43 am

golfboy       
User avatar
      

Posts: 51289
onlyaladd » 15 Apr 2016 9:32 am wrote:
golfboy » 15 Apr 2016 9:22 am wrote:
Riiiiight. That's why you quoted me.
Look, it's not my fault, or Huey's, that you didn't bother to educate yourself before opening your mouth.
Seems like you'd learn, but obviously not.

I quoted Huey from the op. You responded to me by bringing up a side issue. You are an idiot.

Liar.
onlyaladd » 15 Apr 2016 7:15 am wrote:
golfboy » 14 Apr 2016 12:11 pm wrote:
They prove they have no respect for our laws, but BEING here illegally.

And now Hillary is saying she will create a new Government Department to aid illegal aliens to become U.S. Citizens.
Imagine that. She wants the government to HELP them violate the law.
This is what the Democrat Party has become.

The op didn't mention illegal immigrants. He said refugees and immigrants.
-1

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
15 Apr 2016, 11:17 am

golfboy       
User avatar
      

Posts: 51289
onlyaladd » 15 Apr 2016 10:45 am wrote:

Lol. Yes golfboy that's the first time I told you I was talking to huey and that he didn't mention illegals in the op.

Do you want to prove again that I said what I said? You're a special kind of stupid.

You quoted me, and clearly you didn't read the linked story.
But as always, it's my fault you opened your mouth, without knowing what you were talking bout.
-1

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
15 Apr 2016, 12:45 pm

golfboy       
User avatar
      

Posts: 51289
onlyaladd » 15 Apr 2016 11:35 am wrote:
golfboy » 15 Apr 2016 11:17 am wrote:
You quoted me, and clearly you didn't read the linked story.
But as always, it's my fault you opened your mouth, without knowing what you were talking bout.

I didn't "quote" you I responded to you to tell you that you were off topic from the op which was what I had been responding to.
Why are we discussing this? Everyone can see you are just being a stupid shit like usual. Let's just leave it at that.

You quoted me. That's what pressing the quote button does, dumbass.
We're discussing this because you were wrong, and as always, you'd rather discuss minutia than admit you were ever wrong about anything.
It's what you do.
-1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
16 Apr 2016, 1:06 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 12847
bingster » 16 Apr 2016 12:37 pm wrote:
Show Of Hands - Who Hates Christians, Yet Thinks Muslims Are Okay?

I've said this countless times and it's true. Those without religion don't feel "hate" unless they or their families have been seriously violated. It takes a psychotic belief in fairy tales to gin up the intensity of "hate". I don't hate anyone or anything.
...

What bullshit....your own statement, "it takes a psychotic belief in fair tales to gin up"...is filled with hate.
-1

Nighthawk's Photo
Posted by Nighthawk
10 Apr 2016, 10:02 am

Nighthawk      
     

Posts: 3458
ATX 420 » 07 Apr 2016 1:49 am wrote:
Nighthawk » 06 Apr 2016 6:31 pm wrote:

Who gives a damn if the constituents supported the racist laws of your precious government? Are you claiming that makes it right, you racist piece of shit?

What the hell does the number of people have to do with anything??? As long as there is at least one single "greedy" person left on the planet that can get to that city and serve all the unserved blacks and thus easily get filthy rich (if it is legal for them to do so), then the racists will not be able to stop the blacks from being served. If the city is truly so tiny that there are not enough blacks to make a market and all the other people are hardcore racists, then the intelligent thing to do is for the blacks to get the hell out of there ASAP. If I lived in some tiny town as a minority and everyone there hated me for my race, I would get the fuck out of there so fast it would make your head spin.

And without the threat of lethal force from your precious government and their racist laws, or using force themselves, how would the evil racists stop some greedy entrepreneur from coming along to serve the blacks and easily get filthy rich?

Protecting people and their property from harm is one of the very, very few legitimate functions of government. If these things were happening, it was only because your precious government was doing a piss poor job of doing one of it's very few responsibilities. So why not just fix that problem instead of passing unnecessary laws, dumbass?

Where the companies are located is completely irrelevant, moron. The only thing that matters is WHO IS PAYING FOR THE INNOVATION? And the answer is...(drum roll)... THE FUCKING USA, imbecile! Link.

Americans pay for medical innovation, especially pharmaceuticals, and are taken advantage of by Europeans. American consumers are first-users that pay for the development of new technology, which the rest of the world after a while gets for closer to production cost (which is very low for most drugs). The same is true for other spending on medicine that involves innovation, such as dialysis technology, invented by a European but commercialized in the U.S. Swedish dialysis firm Gambro has two thirds of its sales in the U.S.

To give a simple example: Albania has a life expectancy close to as Western Europe (77.6 years). They spend very little on health care. But even Albania can buy generic heart medicine - that is better than anything you could have had in 1995 - for almost free. Not in a hundred years could Albania have developed this on their own: They free ride on the rest of the world.

Western Europe does not free-ride quite as much as Albania, but certainly bear less of their full share of the costs. Even though Europe has a much larger population than the U.S, all of Europe accounted for a smaller share of global pharmaceutical sales than the U.S, which alone accounted for 41% of the world market in 2005, despite having only 4% of world population.

According to this study 57% of European pharmaceutical profits was made in the U.S market, whereas only 24% of American pharmaceutical profits were made in the European market.

The regulated European system pays for less of the cost of medicine, but gets get the same drugs. Drugs in the American free market system costs much more. Consumers in both places get the same quality drugs, but Americans pay much more, and bear the burden of development.

Does this mean the U.S should copy the same system? No. If America stops paying for innovation there is no one to free-ride on. Unfair but true.

The irony is that Europeans root for America to move towards socialized medicine, which would harm them massively. This suggests that ideology is stronger than self-interest, especially regarding abstract concepts.


I guess your liberal masters never told you the real reasons why other countries can spend so much less on their healthcare, did they? It is much easier for them to brainwash you by simply saying "other countries have government-run healthcare" and "other countries spend much less on healthcare", and allow you weak-minded sheep to just assume that these 2 statements are somehow cause-and-effect. They want you to believe this so you dimwits will vote to give them more and more and more power. And apparently morons like you just fall for it hook, line, and sinker, because you are unable to think for yourselves. Congratulations on being used like a pawn. Your must make your masters very proud.

Why the hell should people that live in big cities have to subsidize people that voluntarily choose to live in the middle of nowhere?

I will address this in a separate post, as it is very difficult to keep you on topic and this will make it harder for you to cowardly dodge the subject like you usually do.

As I have repeatedly explained to your ignorant ass, the only way that companies could successfully pay their workers $2/hr in a free market is if that is all their labor is truly worth. If this is the case, then the most likely result of a moronic MW law is that these people will be UNEMPLOYED ENTIRELY, rather than getting to enjoy being vastly overpaid. Most companies are not in business to lose money for each employee they hire, and will not last very long if they do this, dunce. So how in the holy hell is someone getting fucking ZERO, supposedly better than making $2/hr and actually getting to gain experience so they can make more money later?

As I clearly told you above, you are not the one with the moral high ground on this issue, numbskull, I am. It is YOU that wants to hurt people, not me.

Even government social programs, as bad as they are, are a much better idea than your moronic MW laws, retard.


Bullshit scum bag.. how do you get rich off a few dozen minorities who are underserved and really poor, that is one stupid ass argument right there.


What percent of the country falls into your absurd little category- where there are only a few dozen minorities in the whole region, and all the non-minorities are all racists against them? Maybe 0.001%? So you are claiming we need more federal fucking laws to help those mere 0.001%, rather than just telling those minorities to simply MOVE?

You just ignore parts of history you dont like, huh? The ignorance is unbelievable with you.. the government is put in place by the people, populism was especially strong back then


What history am I supposedly ignoring? And who cares about populism? Are you claiming that made it right? I wish I could tell what the hell you are babbling about.

When people who were part of the police force and fire departments helped burn down homes in places like Tulsa, how can you stop that? The Federal Government could only control the South for so long until locals got their way again.


So your solution to bad government is... MORE FUCKING GOVERNMENT, dimwit?

Wow.. what a bullshit claim. So, none of these amazing innovations out of Europe matter, because much of it is sold in the USA?


I never said they didn't "matter", dumbass. My entire point was about who was fucking PAYING for the innovations. It seems like none of you idiot libs know how to fucking read. How the fuck did you all get past the first or second grade without learning how to read???


And half of the largest drug companies are in Europe, and they come up with amazing things, as well. And it doesnt always come down to who spends more.

Here is a study that pretty much demolishes the silly little liar theory you fall for.. who tricks you with this shit, anyway? Do you just get this from your corporate master's blogs? At the very least, Europe is plenty capable, they certainly aren't leaches.. youre a scumbag liar who is falling for the dirty tricks of some very unAmerican and unPatriotic parasites.
Image


Image

http://content.healthaffairs.org/conten ... l.pdf+html


I very, very, very clearly explained to you that the locations of the companies creating innovations are IRRELEVANT, you damn imbecile. So why the fuck are you posting more evidence of the innovations of companies in Europe? Do you not even know what the word "IRRELEVANT" means, dunce?

The only thing that is RELEVANT to this discussion is who is PAYING for the innovations. Just because a company is located in Europe, it doesn't necessarily mean that the country in which they are located is PAYING for their innovations, moron. Let me see if I can dumb this down a little further so that even a dullard like you can grasp it-

1. It is extremely expensive to develop new drugs or other medical innovations.

2. Someone has to pay for the R&D of companies creating these new drugs & innovations or they won't be able to stay in business.

3. In most cases, the customers that buy the new drugs & innovations are the ones that ultimately pay for the R&D.

4. Most of your beloved European countries with your precious government-run healthcare use government price controls to keep the prices of the drugs & innovations much, much lower for customers than they would otherwise have to be to fund the massively expensive R&D.

5. The US does not use government price controls to keep prices of drugs and other innovations below the cost of the R&D to create them.

6. Therefore, it is the US that is PAYING the lion's share of the cost to develop the new drugs or other innovations, regardless of the location of the company creating them.

7. This means your precious government-run healthcare systems are largely "free-riding" on the backs of the people in the US.

8. This helps make the costs of the government-run healthcare systems lower than in the US.

9. Unless the US also imposes moronic price controls, simply switching to a government-run healthcare system in the US will not avoid the extra costs we are paying for the development of these innovations.

10. If the US does also impose price controls, then the overall worldwide development of new drugs & innovations will sharply decline, per #1 & #2 above.

If you still don't get it, please tell me which of the items above is confusing you.

And to end it, youre right, government social programs are a better idea than a MW.


Then why the hell are you advocating for moronic MW laws, retard???

If greedy scum suckers just made the vast investments into health and education years ago, made more of a level playing field, then we could live in some perfect world where these ideas could work. Otherwise, the people making $2 wouldnt be getting a chance to learn new skills, just like the past 2 centuries, people like that would be exploited.

And, many of their children's children would, as well, because studies show generational poverty literally lowers IQs.. that is why those investments I talked about, that is the only way this system could work. You need social programs that makes sure these infants, toddlers and kids are having books read to them and are being fed well, then get back to me. Heck, just start with universal quality day care and healthcare for all children... then get back to me about the MW


Again, your anger is seriously displaced. You should not be angry at the supposedly "greedy" people who don't want their money stolen from them and largely wasted by your precious government. You should be angry at your liberal political masters that are wasting most of the money with which they are entrusted and are putting up endless roadblocks in the paths of people's ability to improve their lot in life.
-1

User avatar
Posted by Annoyed Liberall
09 Mar 2016, 10:36 am

Post 09 Mar 2016, 10:36 am
Annoyed Liberall Hot Little Twist
User avatar
Hot Little Twist

Posts: 31080
May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.
Nelson Mandela
-1

TonySplacci's Photo
Posted by TonySplacci
19 Apr 2016, 6:35 pm

Post 19 Apr 2016, 6:35 pm
TonySplacci       
      

Posts: 13561

Nighthawk's Photo
Posted by Nighthawk
17 Apr 2016, 4:46 pm

Nighthawk      
     

Posts: 3458
ATX 420 » 17 Apr 2016 12:56 pm wrote:
Spending does make a difference when many of these countries are spending 1/3 of their GDP on healthcare for similar results, spreading care around more efficiently.


And I have repeatedly explained and proven with indisputable facts the main reasons that they spend less and how their results are NOT truly "similar." Your masters have brainwashed you into believing that since other countries with government-run healthcare spend less, that if we just let the government completely run the healthcare in the US, with absolutely no other changes such as massive rationing or price controls, then we can magically spend less as well. This is complete and utter BULL-FUCKING-SHIT, you damn moron. One can simply look at the spending in the US by the portion of healthcare that is already run by the government- Medicare - to see that this will not magically save any money-

Image

AS this chart shows, the US per capita spending on healthcare for people under age 65 is very similar (and even lower in some cases) than many of your beloved government-run systems. But for people over age 65, the US sends way, way, way, way more than other countries. In case you are not aware, most people in the US under age 65 are mostly in a privatized health care system, but people over age 65 are mostly in a government-run single payer system known as Medicare. I would love to see you explain how switching people that are currently in a system that costs less than some other countries to a system that costs much, much, much more than other countries will somehow save costs, without massive rationing or moronic price controls. Good luck.

So.. if you weren't such a lying scum sucker,


If I am supposedly lying, then let's see you actually prove it instead of just blindly claiming it, retard. Good luck.

one could assume the system could run amazingly well if they reprioritized their budget. I do think Europe free rides on the USA.. I said this already, and Im glad even Obama pointed it out concerning NATO, he literally called them free riders for not meeting spending quotas. But if you were honest, you'd realize the health care system there works very well, and it's because of where they prioritize their spending, if there is any deficit. If it was reprioritized, which I think they have the wealth and knowledge to do, it could happen.. and I think a change here in the USA would force that change in Europe.


What do you mean it "works very well"? You mean that free-riding on massive spending by US citizens works very well? Since the US is foolishly letting these countries get away with this thievery, then yes, I suppose it is working very well for them. If some guy robs a bank and the government were to let him go, I suppose you would say that bank robbing works very well for that guy too, huh?

Lying scum like you love to bring up cancer survival rates..


Yes, how dare "scum" like me bring up factual data regarding the actual results of certain policies instead of spouting meaningless emotional slogans and propaganda like you idiot libs. Lol...

And how exactly am I the "scum" here?

It is YOU that is advocating the use of force and violence, not me.

It is YOU that is advocating policies like moronic MW laws and rationing of healthcare that HURT AND KILL PEOPLE, not me.

It YOU that is cowardly dodging simple questions over and over and over like a scared little pussy, not me.

Hmmm... seems like it YOU that is the "scum" around here, asshole.

I don't think youre an idiot,


Of course I am not an idiot. Why the hell do you think no one has ever proven me wrong on this forum even one single time?

i just think you lie to make your points.


Again, let's see you prove where I have supposedly lied for fuck's sake. How many fucking times do I have to ask?

Just look at how you talk to people,


I talk down to you brainless cretins because you are supporting policies that fucking HURT AND KILL PEOPLE. If you don't want to be called an idiot, then the solution is very, very simple- quit being one, dumbass. Try educating yourself for once in your entire miserable life, instead of letting your masters continually brainwash you like a good little sheep so you will give them more and more power.

of course you'd lie to make a point and when you see it enough, a person loses credibility.. The Cancer survival rates people throw around, that show a huge disparity in a few types of cancer, like prostate, those are 5 year survival rates. Some of the people are DYING, they were just diagnosed sooner than people in Europe. You've got 90 year old men diagnosed with prostate cancer on that list, who aren't going to be operated on because it'd kill them, being put down as surviving cancer. The numbers are skewed, and scum like you are either fooled by them, or you are using them... it's disgusting, really.


The request I made to you above was very, very, very simple and clear. Since you either did not read it, or did not comprehend it, here it is again for you-

Let's see you post proof that the numbers are ACTUALLY flawed, and not just some conjecture of possible ways in which they MIGHT be flawed.

Can you provide what I requested, with links for backup, or will you admit you are just a fucking POS liar? Your dumb little rant did NOT come remotely close to satisfying my simple request.

Good luck.
-1