Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Trump orders FBI to target blacks and environmentalists

Page 15 of 31 [ 482 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 31  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

25 Aug 2019, 12:25 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
If you're against income inequality, then embrace capitalism.
In theory. In theory, communism was supposed to work, too.

Any government (human greed of people in the government) will put themselves before others.

Thus, it won't work.

Only profit-seeking capitalists have the vision and motivation to seek out more efficient opportunities.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Aug 2019, 12:41 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If you're against income inequality, then embrace capitalism.
In theory. In theory, communism was supposed to work, too.

Any government (human greed of people in the government) will put themselves before others.

Thus, it won't work.

Only profit-seeking capitalists have the vision and motivation to seek out more efficient opportunities.


Not everyone is a profit seeking capitalist. In fact most people just want to have enough to support a family and have a little enjoyment in life. Why should they be denied that for the greed of the employer class?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

25 Aug 2019, 12:51 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If you're against income inequality, then embrace capitalism.
In theory. In theory, communism was supposed to work, too.

Any government (human greed of people in the government) will put themselves before others.

Thus, it won't work.

Only profit-seeking capitalists have the vision and motivation to seek out more efficient opportunities.


Not everyone is a profit seeking capitalist. In fact most people just want to have enough to support a family and have a little enjoyment in life. Why should they be denied that for the greed of the employer class?

Capitalists fight income inequality. Do you support that or not? You sound like a nationalist?

profits should come before people , otherwise greedy people will undermine efficiency
Image


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

25 Aug 2019, 1:00 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If you're against income inequality, then embrace capitalism.
In theory. In theory, communism was supposed to work, too.

Any government (human greed of people in the government) will put themselves before others.

Thus, it won't work.

Only profit-seeking capitalists have the vision and motivation to seek out more efficient opportunities.


Not everyone is a profit seeking capitalist. In fact most people just want to have enough to support a family and have a little enjoyment in life. Why should they be denied that for the greed of the employer class?

Capitalists fight income inequality. Do you support that or not? You sound like a nationalist?

profits should come before people , otherwise greedy people will undermine efficiency
Image

In the big picture, if you want to help the most people, you want the best efficiency. That leaves more resources for others.

Your argument , what about a mega-rich American being left behind, indicates you don't really want to help people. You're nationalistic and self-centered ?


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

25 Aug 2019, 1:29 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
If you're against income inequality, then embrace capitalism.
Because capitalists take their production to the lowest cost places on the planet.
Thus, raising up the poorest people on the planet


You said this and then this!

LoveNotHate wrote:
Capitalists fight income inequality.


Yay for capitalists taking jobs offshore! but then what does the orange one want to bring them back??

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/tr ... -skeptical

All he's done in reality is to destroy America's trade with China with his tariff war....not really a friend of capatilism is he



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

25 Aug 2019, 1:32 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
In the big picture, if you want to help the most people, you want the best efficiency. That leaves more resources for others.

Your argument , what about a mega-rich American being left behind, indicates you don't really want to help people. You're nationalistic and self-centered ?


Oh boo hoo...you really know how to the pull at the old heart strings huh....

just one small itsy bitsy problem...allowing multinationals into your country doesn't leave more resources for others...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... in-poverty



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Aug 2019, 1:51 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
That is all a lot of palaver for do not want to make an effort but get the same benefits as those who do. I don't deserve these slave wages. I deserve to have what the person who worked at establishing a career has. Good number of people who make big bucks also work long hours.


People who work hard and are able to overcome obstacles and achieve what they want in life are commendable (no argument there). Plenty of self-made people who are good role models.

What I am trying to justify is a financial safety net for those who are unable to achieve what people refer to as the dream (you might refer to it as the American dream) to live independently.

As Kraichie mentioned everyone is entitled to a minimum standard of living or quality of life. It is the socially responsible thing to do. It is irresponsible to try and pass judgement on those unable to survive without welfare. There are those who face glass ceilings and can't feel they can overcome these for whatever reason. We have a collective responsibility for these people.


No one said anything against a minimum standard of living or quality of life. That is what most people have at the minimum. That is what I will have with SSDI. If I want more than that, I will have to find a way to make that happen for me. And no one said anything against welfare for those who have no other option - like me for example. I am pretty sure neither Persephone29 nor LoveNotHate have anything against someone as disabled as me collecting SSDI.

A thing is though, I do not want it. I would rather earn my livelihood independently by working. And if I can find a way to make that happen I will.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

25 Aug 2019, 1:59 am

I am glad we are finding common ground Ezra



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Aug 2019, 2:00 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Take it from me...a society that strives to live by Darwinian principles of "survival of the fittest" might be espousing the perfect virtues of rugged individualism (so cherished by you and Ezra) but also seems to underpin the ethos of hunger games or virtual reality games like "Big Brother" where only the strongest get to enjoy the spoils and the rest suffer the humiliation of consolation of life as wage slaves. This is actually ethically and morally indefensible and evidently contradicts the christian ethos of the founding fathers.

Am interesting side story was at the time of signing the declaration of independence, an inalienable declaration was made in the American constitution that;
"All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness".

The founding fathers were made aware this declaration was incompatible with slavery but Before final approval, Congress, having made a few alterations to some of the wording, also deleted nearly a fourth of the draft, including a passage criticizing the slave trade. At that time many members of Congress, including Jefferson, owned slaves, which clearly factored into their decision to delete the controversial "anti-slavery" passage. Jefferson believed adding such a passage would dissolve the independence movement. Jefferson, decades before the Declaration of Independence, argued in court for the abolition of a slave. The court dismissed the case outright. In writing the declaration, Jefferson believed the phrase "all men are created equal" to be self-evident, and would ultimately resolve slavery. In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day wrote: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves."

I pick on Jefferson who was a paedophile and a liar but Washington was also a crook. In order to get around the rule that slaves must be offered their freedom after 6 months of service in the state of Virginia he moved the slaves across state lines and reregistered them as slaves before bringing them back to Virginia,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180954283/

So it's a fact that both Jefferson and Washington the founding fathers of the US were also criminals in their own country.

This therefore taints the constitution. We have similar problems in Australia where both the architect of our constitution and our first prime minster were also dishonest men.


That is all a lot of palaver for do not want to make an effort but get the same benefits as those who do. I don't deserve these slave wages. I deserve to have what the person who worked at establishing a career has. Good number of people who make big bucks also work long hours. But hell no don't want to do that. Just give me the benefits because I deserve equality. I am entitled dammit.

You know my feelings don't come from conservatives. They come from being a fighter. I have almost died a couple of times, but I fought my way through it. They said I would never walk or talk or do anything except eat and crap myself. I overheard them because they thought I was too out to lunch to understand. I did not have to go through grueling physical, occupational and speech therapy. I could have stayed right were I was at. But I fought to achieve and I got results. I am not making a speech about what a hero I am. I just know from personal experience if you want something you have to work for it. You have to earn it.


Well, I'm glad you were able to fool everyone and come out on top.


Yeah I fooled everyone by striving hard and making sacrifices to achieve.
It is kind of a 'rags to riches' story.
What you seem to want is rags to riches without striving and making sacrifices.
Those who strive and make sacrifices to achieve are supposed to play fairy godmother to those don't.


The people who make your food do bust their backsides, but get little in return for it. I never said people should get riches for little effort. What I was getting at was that employers should quit paying workers for as little as possible for maximum work.
Incidentally, people on the stock exchange get rich just by moving money around, not by genuine hard work. Why don't I hear conservatives complain about that?


I think stockbrokers or whatever work pretty long hours and it is a hard job. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

Here is the thing. Lets say food handlers are making $10 per hr and technicians are making $20 per hr. The food handlers wage can be increased to $20 per hr. But then the technicians are then going to want $40 per hr. And since food handlers have to be paid twice as much, the food that they prepare is going to cost twice as much. So in the end it is not going to make any difference.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Aug 2019, 2:03 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If you're against income inequality, then embrace capitalism.
In theory. In theory, communism was supposed to work, too.

Any government (human greed of people in the government) will put themselves before others.

Thus, it won't work.

Only profit-seeking capitalists have the vision and motivation to seek out more efficient opportunities.


Not everyone is a profit seeking capitalist. In fact most people just want to have enough to support a family and have a little enjoyment in life. Why should they be denied that for the greed of the employer class?

Capitalists fight income inequality. Do you support that or not? You sound like a nationalist?

profits should come before people , otherwise greedy people will undermine efficiency
Image

In the big picture, if you want to help the most people, you want the best efficiency. That leaves more resources for others.

Your argument , what about a mega-rich American being left behind, indicates you don't really want to help people. You're nationalistic and self-centered ?


I'm not a nationalist. But I was born in the American working class, and I can tell you right now that the life my dad was able to provide for my mom and me is no longer available to most American workers. That changed when labor laws were revoked, unions broken, benefits stripped away, wages allowed to stagnate, and jobs sent overseas. Companies expect workers to be loyal to them, but that loyalty is hardly ever returned. Big business can and should help others, but they don't due to corporate greed, and caring about the welfare of the shareholders over that of their own employees. When America was number one, workers got a huge share of the spoils. That ended with business being allowed to get away with murder.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Aug 2019, 2:08 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Take it from me...a society that strives to live by Darwinian principles of "survival of the fittest" might be espousing the perfect virtues of rugged individualism (so cherished by you and Ezra) but also seems to underpin the ethos of hunger games or virtual reality games like "Big Brother" where only the strongest get to enjoy the spoils and the rest suffer the humiliation of consolation of life as wage slaves. This is actually ethically and morally indefensible and evidently contradicts the christian ethos of the founding fathers.

Am interesting side story was at the time of signing the declaration of independence, an inalienable declaration was made in the American constitution that;
"All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness".

The founding fathers were made aware this declaration was incompatible with slavery but Before final approval, Congress, having made a few alterations to some of the wording, also deleted nearly a fourth of the draft, including a passage criticizing the slave trade. At that time many members of Congress, including Jefferson, owned slaves, which clearly factored into their decision to delete the controversial "anti-slavery" passage. Jefferson believed adding such a passage would dissolve the independence movement. Jefferson, decades before the Declaration of Independence, argued in court for the abolition of a slave. The court dismissed the case outright. In writing the declaration, Jefferson believed the phrase "all men are created equal" to be self-evident, and would ultimately resolve slavery. In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day wrote: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves."

I pick on Jefferson who was a paedophile and a liar but Washington was also a crook. In order to get around the rule that slaves must be offered their freedom after 6 months of service in the state of Virginia he moved the slaves across state lines and reregistered them as slaves before bringing them back to Virginia,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180954283/

So it's a fact that both Jefferson and Washington the founding fathers of the US were also criminals in their own country.

This therefore taints the constitution. We have similar problems in Australia where both the architect of our constitution and our first prime minster were also dishonest men.


That is all a lot of palaver for do not want to make an effort but get the same benefits as those who do. I don't deserve these slave wages. I deserve to have what the person who worked at establishing a career has. Good number of people who make big bucks also work long hours. But hell no don't want to do that. Just give me the benefits because I deserve equality. I am entitled dammit.

You know my feelings don't come from conservatives. They come from being a fighter. I have almost died a couple of times, but I fought my way through it. They said I would never walk or talk or do anything except eat and crap myself. I overheard them because they thought I was too out to lunch to understand. I did not have to go through grueling physical, occupational and speech therapy. I could have stayed right were I was at. But I fought to achieve and I got results. I am not making a speech about what a hero I am. I just know from personal experience if you want something you have to work for it. You have to earn it.


Well, I'm glad you were able to fool everyone and come out on top.


Yeah I fooled everyone by striving hard and making sacrifices to achieve.
It is kind of a 'rags to riches' story.
What you seem to want is rags to riches without striving and making sacrifices.
Those who strive and make sacrifices to achieve are supposed to play fairy godmother to those don't.


The people who make your food do bust their backsides, but get little in return for it. I never said people should get riches for little effort. What I was getting at was that employers should quit paying workers for as little as possible for maximum work.
Incidentally, people on the stock exchange get rich just by moving money around, not by genuine hard work. Why don't I hear conservatives complain about that?


I think stockbrokers or whatever work pretty long hours and it is a hard job. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

Here is the thing. Lets say food handlers are making $10 per hr and technicians are making $20 per hr. The food handlers wage can be increased to $20 per hr. But then the technicians are then going to want $40 per hr. And since food handlers have to be paid twice as much, the food that they prepare is going to cost twice as much. So in the end it is not going to make any difference.


I'm particularly friendly with a businessman who attends my church, and he confirms what I think about stock brokers. And morally, stockbrokers make reptiles seem appealing.
Even food workers would agree they shouldn't get the pay of highly trained tech workers, but they should get something more than starvation wages.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Aug 2019, 2:10 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If you're against income inequality, then embrace capitalism.
In theory. In theory, communism was supposed to work, too.

Any government (human greed of people in the government) will put themselves before others.

Thus, it won't work.

Only profit-seeking capitalists have the vision and motivation to seek out more efficient opportunities.


Not everyone is a profit seeking capitalist. In fact most people just want to have enough to support a family and have a little enjoyment in life. Why should they be denied that for the greed of the employer class?


Most people who work have that. The industry my aunt is in is known for not paying much. Nobody working in her industry that she knows of is living in the street. They have have a home and usually a car, clothes, food etc.

A relative of mine has worked as a security guard since the 80s. The kind of security guard that gets paid the lowest in the private security industry. He has done just fine in the last 30-35 years. He is happy as a clam.

I think those who make what my aunt or relative make, who can not make ends meet, are probably living beyond their means.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

25 Aug 2019, 2:11 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Take it from me...a society that strives to live by Darwinian principles of "survival of the fittest" might be espousing the perfect virtues of rugged individualism (so cherished by you and Ezra) but also seems to underpin the ethos of hunger games or virtual reality games like "Big Brother" where only the strongest get to enjoy the spoils and the rest suffer the humiliation of consolation of life as wage slaves. This is actually ethically and morally indefensible and evidently contradicts the christian ethos of the founding fathers.

Am interesting side story was at the time of signing the declaration of independence, an inalienable declaration was made in the American constitution that;
"All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness".

The founding fathers were made aware this declaration was incompatible with slavery but Before final approval, Congress, having made a few alterations to some of the wording, also deleted nearly a fourth of the draft, including a passage criticizing the slave trade. At that time many members of Congress, including Jefferson, owned slaves, which clearly factored into their decision to delete the controversial "anti-slavery" passage. Jefferson believed adding such a passage would dissolve the independence movement. Jefferson, decades before the Declaration of Independence, argued in court for the abolition of a slave. The court dismissed the case outright. In writing the declaration, Jefferson believed the phrase "all men are created equal" to be self-evident, and would ultimately resolve slavery. In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day wrote: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves."

I pick on Jefferson who was a paedophile and a liar but Washington was also a crook. In order to get around the rule that slaves must be offered their freedom after 6 months of service in the state of Virginia he moved the slaves across state lines and reregistered them as slaves before bringing them back to Virginia,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180954283/

So it's a fact that both Jefferson and Washington the founding fathers of the US were also criminals in their own country.

This therefore taints the constitution. We have similar problems in Australia where both the architect of our constitution and our first prime minster were also dishonest men.


That is all a lot of palaver for do not want to make an effort but get the same benefits as those who do. I don't deserve these slave wages. I deserve to have what the person who worked at establishing a career has. Good number of people who make big bucks also work long hours. But hell no don't want to do that. Just give me the benefits because I deserve equality. I am entitled dammit.

You know my feelings don't come from conservatives. They come from being a fighter. I have almost died a couple of times, but I fought my way through it. They said I would never walk or talk or do anything except eat and crap myself. I overheard them because they thought I was too out to lunch to understand. I did not have to go through grueling physical, occupational and speech therapy. I could have stayed right were I was at. But I fought to achieve and I got results. I am not making a speech about what a hero I am. I just know from personal experience if you want something you have to work for it. You have to earn it.


Well, I'm glad you were able to fool everyone and come out on top.


Yeah I fooled everyone by striving hard and making sacrifices to achieve.
It is kind of a 'rags to riches' story.
What you seem to want is rags to riches without striving and making sacrifices.
Those who strive and make sacrifices to achieve are supposed to play fairy godmother to those don't.


The people who make your food do bust their backsides, but get little in return for it. I never said people should get riches for little effort. What I was getting at was that employers should quit paying workers for as little as possible for maximum work.
Incidentally, people on the stock exchange get rich just by moving money around, not by genuine hard work. Why don't I hear conservatives complain about that?


I think stockbrokers or whatever work pretty long hours and it is a hard job. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

Here is the thing. Lets say food handlers are making $10 per hr and technicians are making $20 per hr. The food handlers wage can be increased to $20 per hr. But then the technicians are then going to want $40 per hr. And since food handlers have to be paid twice as much, the food that they prepare is going to cost twice as much. So in the end it is not going to make any difference.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... work-hours

Investment banking is not for the feint of heart.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Aug 2019, 2:14 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If you're against income inequality, then embrace capitalism.
In theory. In theory, communism was supposed to work, too.

Any government (human greed of people in the government) will put themselves before others.

Thus, it won't work.

Only profit-seeking capitalists have the vision and motivation to seek out more efficient opportunities.


Not everyone is a profit seeking capitalist. In fact most people just want to have enough to support a family and have a little enjoyment in life. Why should they be denied that for the greed of the employer class?


Most people who work have that. The industry my aunt is in is known for not paying much. Nobody working in her industry that she knows of is living in the street. They have have a home and usually a car, clothes, food etc.

A relative of mine has worked as a security guard since the 80s. The kind of security guard that gets paid the lowest in the private security industry. He has done just fine in the last 30-35 years. He is happy as a clam.

I think those who make what my aunt or relative make, who can not make ends meet, are probably living beyond their means.


Growing up, my dad was able to provide much more to my mom and me with his fantastic wage and great benefits. Now workers are told to just settle.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Aug 2019, 2:15 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm particularly friendly with a businessman who attends my church, and he confirms what I think about stock brokers. And morally, stockbrokers make reptiles seem appealing.
Even food workers would agree they shouldn't get the pay of highly trained tech workers, but they should get something more than starvation wages.


Your knowledge usually seems based on one or a few people you know at your church.

"A day in the life of a stockbroker is quite long and begins several hours before trading opens for the day. A broker gets to work early to read financial news and begin researching trades. The day typically starts at around 6:30 or 7:00 with market research and responses to client emails"

What Does a Stockbroker Do?
https://www.master-of-finance.org/faq/w ... broker-do/

s**t dude if it was just sitting around trading stocks, I would be doing it. It takes hard work and talent to be successful at it.

I wonder at times how idealistic you are as compared to being realistic.



Last edited by EzraS on 25 Aug 2019, 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Aug 2019, 2:16 am

Antrax wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Take it from me...a society that strives to live by Darwinian principles of "survival of the fittest" might be espousing the perfect virtues of rugged individualism (so cherished by you and Ezra) but also seems to underpin the ethos of hunger games or virtual reality games like "Big Brother" where only the strongest get to enjoy the spoils and the rest suffer the humiliation of consolation of life as wage slaves. This is actually ethically and morally indefensible and evidently contradicts the christian ethos of the founding fathers.

Am interesting side story was at the time of signing the declaration of independence, an inalienable declaration was made in the American constitution that;
"All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness".

The founding fathers were made aware this declaration was incompatible with slavery but Before final approval, Congress, having made a few alterations to some of the wording, also deleted nearly a fourth of the draft, including a passage criticizing the slave trade. At that time many members of Congress, including Jefferson, owned slaves, which clearly factored into their decision to delete the controversial "anti-slavery" passage. Jefferson believed adding such a passage would dissolve the independence movement. Jefferson, decades before the Declaration of Independence, argued in court for the abolition of a slave. The court dismissed the case outright. In writing the declaration, Jefferson believed the phrase "all men are created equal" to be self-evident, and would ultimately resolve slavery. In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day wrote: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves."

I pick on Jefferson who was a paedophile and a liar but Washington was also a crook. In order to get around the rule that slaves must be offered their freedom after 6 months of service in the state of Virginia he moved the slaves across state lines and reregistered them as slaves before bringing them back to Virginia,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180954283/

So it's a fact that both Jefferson and Washington the founding fathers of the US were also criminals in their own country.

This therefore taints the constitution. We have similar problems in Australia where both the architect of our constitution and our first prime minster were also dishonest men.


That is all a lot of palaver for do not want to make an effort but get the same benefits as those who do. I don't deserve these slave wages. I deserve to have what the person who worked at establishing a career has. Good number of people who make big bucks also work long hours. But hell no don't want to do that. Just give me the benefits because I deserve equality. I am entitled dammit.

You know my feelings don't come from conservatives. They come from being a fighter. I have almost died a couple of times, but I fought my way through it. They said I would never walk or talk or do anything except eat and crap myself. I overheard them because they thought I was too out to lunch to understand. I did not have to go through grueling physical, occupational and speech therapy. I could have stayed right were I was at. But I fought to achieve and I got results. I am not making a speech about what a hero I am. I just know from personal experience if you want something you have to work for it. You have to earn it.


Well, I'm glad you were able to fool everyone and come out on top.


Yeah I fooled everyone by striving hard and making sacrifices to achieve.
It is kind of a 'rags to riches' story.
What you seem to want is rags to riches without striving and making sacrifices.
Those who strive and make sacrifices to achieve are supposed to play fairy godmother to those don't.


The people who make your food do bust their backsides, but get little in return for it. I never said people should get riches for little effort. What I was getting at was that employers should quit paying workers for as little as possible for maximum work.
Incidentally, people on the stock exchange get rich just by moving money around, not by genuine hard work. Why don't I hear conservatives complain about that?


I think stockbrokers or whatever work pretty long hours and it is a hard job. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

Here is the thing. Lets say food handlers are making $10 per hr and technicians are making $20 per hr. The food handlers wage can be increased to $20 per hr. But then the technicians are then going to want $40 per hr. And since food handlers have to be paid twice as much, the food that they prepare is going to cost twice as much. So in the end it is not going to make any difference.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... work-hours

Investment banking is not for the feint of heart.


Even companies hiring stockbrokers work their employees to death. Not a great defense in my opinion.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer