Really...? You should dig deep into your psyche and try and figure out what that powerful engine really means in relation to whats missing in your life.
And if your engine is rated in HP and not kw then you should leave slashdot.
Heh, the powerful engine fills one of the things that was missing from my life: the exhilaration of being shoved back in my seat as the car launches forward. Have you ever driven a sports car? Feeling the tires grip the road as you exit a corner and apply power is just a blast. I actually enjoy the handling more than the power. The car just goes right where I point it. It's the joy of using a precise machine. I'm not sure why you assume driving a fast car indicates I'm compensating for something. What's the matter, you don't like fun?;-)
The power is indeed rated in HP. I would love to own a high-performance electric car. But although I make good money, a Tesla is out of my price range. If you'd like to help out with the cost of a P100D, I'd be more than happy to take you up on it.
I only care a little bit because I think all the Fred Flintstones pedaling their way through their lives are just wasting their short time on this planet. Cars are stupid and pointless. Work from home. Ride a bike. Get some fresh air. Stop wasting hours of your life everyday staring at tail lights.
You need a better car. Mine has super-comfy seats, climate control, a nice stereo, great handling and a powerful engine. It works in all weather, keeps me warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and dry on rainy days. It runs on only my schedule, and it's fun to drive.
I think cars are one of the greatest inventions ever. They provide fast, comfortable, convenient transport whenever I want it. Sure, I sit in traffic sometimes (okay, they aren't always fast). But like I said, my car is quite pleasant to sit in and I can listen to music, podcasts or audio books. So my time is hardly wasted. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Exactly. It's like me showing up at work at 10 am, doing half the work and telling the boss this is my new, lower cost labor service. If he would like to continue enjoying the same old labor service, the new price is 20% more than the old price.
Uber is going to have to do this at some point. They can't take a 40% loss on every ride forever. Either the price will have to go up, or the costs will have to go down. They already squeeze their drivers to the point that it's barely worth it to drive for them. I know they are supposedly going to go to self-driving cars. But let's be realistic; those are at least a decade away from actually replacing human drivers. I am interested to see if Uber will be as attractive to people if the price increases by 50%.
People exactly like you (probably also specifically you) shit on Amazon for years, and Tesla, and Uber, and every other business you don't understand.
There's a reason why you are poor and a slave to your salary. You think there are these rules that everyone must follow to be successful, and can't comprehend success outside of that arbitrary mind prison.
You don't understand how billions in losses means zero in taxes for the next 20 years. You don't understand how a bankruptcy means a hundred million dollar payday. You're a fucking moron. Accept that, and embrace that this is why you will never be successful.
If you were as successful as you imply you are, you likely wouldn't be shitposting on the Internet. You'd probably have better things to do. Being truly happy and successful means not feeling the need to disparage strangers on the Internet; from an anonymous account no less.
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
You should read the Constitution more carefully. The ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Constitution is about what the federal government is allowed to do. It does not enshrine certain rights and exclude others.
None of this is obstruction of justice. You either don't understand the concept, or more likely are purposefully ignorant.
There continues to be no evidence of "Russian Collusion". You cannot, by definition, obstruct justice when you did not commit a crime. It requires malicious intent, which does not exist without the crime in the first place.
Once you have proof of a "crime of collision" then we can talk. Until then, you're just another fucking moron who got tricked by the biggest fake news story in history.
I always find it amusing when someone exposes their own ignorance while accusing others of being ignorant.
Obstruction of justice can be committed by interfering with an investigation into a crime. You know, the investigation to find out if a crime has been committed. We then have trials to determine if a person accused of a crime is guilty. That has not happened yet. The investigation is not finished. While Trump is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, it is quite premature to say that he has committed no crime. That's what the investigation is working to determine.
So, let's recap, shall we? There is no evidence of Russian collusion because the investigation into that has not yet completed. Once it has, we will see what evidence they present. Of course, Trump, Jr. has admitted to meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss how she could help them against the Clinton campaign, in return for revisiting the Magnitsky Act if they are elected. Why that doesn't look to you like collusion to you, I'm not quite sure. Regardless, moving on, trying to interfere with the investigation could rise to the level of obstruction, regardless of the eventual findings of the investigation. The whole point of obstruction is to try to prevent the discovery of wrongdoing, after all.
Also, the complete opposite of their normal attitude about regulations.
The point of regulations, while they may start at an intent to help the public, quickly becomes another way to limit competition and protect existing companies by setting up barriers to entry.
So, is that an argument that we shouldn't have regulations, or that they should be better implemented?
Seriously, get some perspective. If you made a list of all the unethical and illegal crap that Uber has done, this wouldn't even make the top one hundred.
maybe so, but it was still better than rent-seeking taxi monopolies. like come on, to have it be illegal to take a guy to a place and take money from him for doing so.. unless you have a permit.
Really, you want any person to be able to roll around and pick people up and transport them for a fare, without any kind of oversight or regulation? Sure, what could go wrong?
What happens when the driver is in an accident and the passenger is injured? Who pays? Will the driver's insurance cover it? What happens if there is a fare dispute? Is the fare even disclosed up front? Says who? You really want to negotiate the fare every time you step into some strangers's car? On that point, you really want to get into some rando's car and trust that they're going to take you where you want to go?
You really want taking a taxi to be basically like hitchhiking? Maybe you should think this through for, like, a minute.
You're not the first person to say he's beyond stupid.
There is a legitimate argument that the world is flat: if you look out the window it's plainly obvious.
So the real issue is whether we choose to believe what the government agency tells.
Most contributors on slashdot believe the government lies and cheats on issues to various degeees.
So when people say it's common sense that the world is round, the takeaway for me is those people believe in something because everybody else does. This herd mentality is also "beyond stupid". Time to apply l'hopital.
You think people believe the earth is round because the government says it is? Really?
That would raise awareness of the fact that their personal info would be monetized, leading people to either abandoning the platform due to invasiveness or to people trying to game the system further in order to get extra cash out of the deal
I see no problem with that, considering that's how the big boys make so much money.
No it's ours. Taken by mandate. Who would volunteer to pay it? Usually spent unwisely. Rarely for the common good. Usually to pander to some cause or make someone (or some group) feel good about themselves. What innovation comes from it we end up paying for again if we want to use it.
No, it's the Federal Reserve's. It says so right on the note. You and I are just borrowing it.
And yet when the Russian Collusion story was revealed to be complete bullshit, you're still subscribed to it... Because not only are you a hypocrite, you're also a fucking moron.
Citation needed. The investigation is still ongoing AFAIK.
> Some users argued that they should be allowed to decide what’s “true, fake, or otherwise,”
yes, your feelings affect the facts
except they don't
All of this is bringing into stark relief the fact that perception is reality. Sure, there are facts, and things that independent observers will agree on, that we call objective reality. But all we have is our perception of it. We all have imperfect information about the world around us, and have internal preferences, expectations and biases that color our point of view. We are all constantly sifting information and trying to separate the signal from the noise. One man's signal can be another man's noise.
So we are all deciding, every day, what is true and what's not, based on our own criteria. We have information sources that we respect and trust, and rely on them to tell us about the world; usually without real proof. I'm not saying that all information is of equal value, or that all opinions have equal merit. Science is still a thing. But for most people, their world view has as much to do with their preconceived notions about how the world works, and what is reasonable to expect, as it does with what they can personally verify. Sometimes even more so.
Well, isn't that why rich people vote Republican; to get their lifetimes of tax cuts and elimination of regulations that cost them money to comply with?
You act like it is a blessing and give out from the Govt to let people KEEP more of their own hard earned money, rather than give it to the govt???
You do realize that that money belongs to the PEOPLE first, not the Govt.
Taxes are given to the govt, but the money belongs first to the people, letting them keep more of their own is they way it should be.
As far as regulations coming down...that too is usually a good thing, as that the more govt stays out of business, the more business can thrive and guess what, more business means more jobs for the populace.
And is it wrong for the more wealthy to get a bit more break on their taxes? Well, considering that half the populace pays no net federal taxes, its no surprise that if you don't pay fucking taxes, you don't get a break on them.
In the cases you listed, the more wealthy are NOT getting anything from the govt, they are having the govt TAKE LESS...that is not the same as giving.
I was merely challenging the idea that the poor vote Democrat so they can get free stuff (essentially the GP's point), by pointing out that rich people also vote to get what they want from government. And it has been shown that wealthy special interests are much better at getting what they want from government. So the idea that the lower class is somehow mooching off the success of the wealthy, and using government to do it, is not accurate.
To your point about money, it does not belong to the people. It belongs to the Federal Reserve; says so right on the note. We are just borrowing it.
And what creates wealth? Manufacturing and agriculture. Turning something useless into something useful. The majority of which the weathy West has offshored to China and other cheap labour nations.
Meanwhile the West just pushes money around in service and banking industries creating no wealth at all, just redistributing what's left into the hands of thoss that already control the system.
It's almost as if the people at the top are not the ones creating the wealth and value. And yet, they are the ones reaping most of the rewards. All this talk about labor markets and levels of industriousness ignore the fact that Capitalism is designed in part to accumulate money at the top. The more money you have, the more ability you have to pay other people to create value for you while taking a cut of the value they create. So once can criticize the poor all they want, but the system still functions the same way.
Ah yes, another demoncrat throwing yet another temper tantrum.
"And if you dont show some initiative, you deserve to die, that is what the fanatic capitalist right says, am I correct?
According to 2nd Thessalonians in the bible if one does not work does not eat. You whiny commie demoncrat terrorists keep touting "What if someone is too disabled to work" Well here's the thing, there is no such thing as being "too disabled to work." Even if there truly were those that are too disabled to work, guess what, can't work falls under don't work so either work or die. Those that are "too disabled to work" are truly "too disabled to live"
LOL, you seem nice.
"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 23:22
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7
"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near, so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin." Deuteronomy 15:9
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18
Quoting the Bible is fun, eh? It's almost as if you can find passages to justify any point of view, even for an uncaring prick like yourself.
Minimum wage jobs are not careers is the issue you're failing to recognize with the left's talking point argument. They're entry jobs or part time jobs. They should never be in the conversation about a "living wage" because that's not the purpose of such jobs. Anyone that works for minimum wage for more than six months is doing something very wrong. Show some initiative and strive for more.
What you're failing to recognize is that the structure of the economy is such that there are not enough career track jobs for all of the people who could work them. And there are many people who do not have the faculties to handle complex, demanding jobs. Where do you get the idea of what the "purpose" of these jobs are? Is it ordained somewhere, or are you merely expressing your opinion?
>they will do whatever it takes to survive regardless of your politics.
Including vote Liberal. That way they get all their lifetime welfare freebies, no questions asked. You and your disgusting ilk are more than happy to punish successful people to pay for the lazy and indolent.
Well, isn't that why rich people vote Republican; to get their lifetimes of tax cuts and elimination of regulations that cost them money to comply with? It seems that, rich or poor, everyone wants something from the government. And rich people are in a much better position to get it; no questions asked.
I'd also add that the people who work for minimum wage work hard for it. If they don't, they are easily replaceable. So your characterization of them and lazy and indolent is quite far off the mark. Perhaps you'd do better to direct your attention towards the very wealthy, if you want to identify the people taking the most advantage. Being wealthy in America is the best advantage of all. Money brings power, yet you focus on the least powerful. Funny.
Condoms are free. Their parents shouldn't have had children they could afford to educate properly to the level required to become self sufficient productive members of society.
So, your suggestion is that they should travel back in time and retroactively not have the children they had? That's quite a practical solution you have there.
Furthermore, working the fast food counter is supposed to be a kid's summer job and off hours for college and pocket money or first car. It is not living wage work for adults. If fast food is your family's primary source of income then you have failed at life and see above about condoms.
The fact that adults are trying to support their families on these jobs should tell you something about the state of the economy and the opportunities available to people. But you'd rather judge and condemn than understand. Has every single adult fast-food worker failed at life? Really, every single one? I'd like to see your data.
It is not my nor anyone else's problem nor responsibility to take care of people who can't be bothered to take care of themselves when perfectly capable and had every opportunity to do so.
No, it's not your responsibility. But you've made some pretty broad assumptions in thinking they are perfectly capable or have had every opportunity. A relative lack of opportunity in the lower class it pretty easy to demonstrate. But again, you're interested in condemning them but not in helping them, based on your perception of their lives and choices, which you actually know nothing about.
Slashdot Mirror
"and a powerful engine"
Really...? You should dig deep into your psyche and try and figure out what that powerful engine really means in relation to whats missing in your life.
And if your engine is rated in HP and not kw then you should leave slashdot.
Heh, the powerful engine fills one of the things that was missing from my life: the exhilaration of being shoved back in my seat as the car launches forward. Have you ever driven a sports car? Feeling the tires grip the road as you exit a corner and apply power is just a blast. I actually enjoy the handling more than the power. The car just goes right where I point it. It's the joy of using a precise machine. I'm not sure why you assume driving a fast car indicates I'm compensating for something. What's the matter, you don't like fun? ;-)
The power is indeed rated in HP. I would love to own a high-performance electric car. But although I make good money, a Tesla is out of my price range. If you'd like to help out with the cost of a P100D, I'd be more than happy to take you up on it.
I only care a little bit because I think all the Fred Flintstones pedaling their way through their lives are just wasting their short time on this planet. Cars are stupid and pointless. Work from home. Ride a bike. Get some fresh air. Stop wasting hours of your life everyday staring at tail lights.
You need a better car. Mine has super-comfy seats, climate control, a nice stereo, great handling and a powerful engine. It works in all weather, keeps me warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and dry on rainy days. It runs on only my schedule, and it's fun to drive.
I think cars are one of the greatest inventions ever. They provide fast, comfortable, convenient transport whenever I want it. Sure, I sit in traffic sometimes (okay, they aren't always fast). But like I said, my car is quite pleasant to sit in and I can listen to music, podcasts or audio books. So my time is hardly wasted. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Exactly. It's like me showing up at work at 10 am, doing half the work and telling the boss this is my new, lower cost labor service. If he would like to continue enjoying the same old labor service, the new price is 20% more than the old price.
Uber is going to have to do this at some point. They can't take a 40% loss on every ride forever. Either the price will have to go up, or the costs will have to go down. They already squeeze their drivers to the point that it's barely worth it to drive for them. I know they are supposedly going to go to self-driving cars. But let's be realistic; those are at least a decade away from actually replacing human drivers. I am interested to see if Uber will be as attractive to people if the price increases by 50%.
Let's face the facts here. The CEO of a publically traded company made a public statement saying they are not interested in making a profit.
I think such a statement would hold up in court.
Uber is not a publicly traded company.
Further more, Amazon had a plan for profitability, Uber doesn't. But the sooner Uber dies, the better.
I don't know, I heard recently that Uber could be profitable tomorrow, but are just choosing not to be.
LOL
People exactly like you (probably also specifically you) shit on Amazon for years, and Tesla, and Uber, and every other business you don't understand.
There's a reason why you are poor and a slave to your salary. You think there are these rules that everyone must follow to be successful, and can't comprehend success outside of that arbitrary mind prison.
You don't understand how billions in losses means zero in taxes for the next 20 years. You don't understand how a bankruptcy means a hundred million dollar payday. You're a fucking moron. Accept that, and embrace that this is why you will never be successful.
If you were as successful as you imply you are, you likely wouldn't be shitposting on the Internet. You'd probably have better things to do. Being truly happy and successful means not feeling the need to disparage strangers on the Internet; from an anonymous account no less.
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
You should read the Constitution more carefully. The ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Constitution is about what the federal government is allowed to do. It does not enshrine certain rights and exclude others.
None of this is obstruction of justice. You either don't understand the concept, or more likely are purposefully ignorant.
There continues to be no evidence of "Russian Collusion". You cannot, by definition, obstruct justice when you did not commit a crime. It requires malicious intent, which does not exist without the crime in the first place.
Once you have proof of a "crime of collision" then we can talk. Until then, you're just another fucking moron who got tricked by the biggest fake news story in history.
I always find it amusing when someone exposes their own ignorance while accusing others of being ignorant.
Obstruction of justice can be committed by interfering with an investigation into a crime. You know, the investigation to find out if a crime has been committed. We then have trials to determine if a person accused of a crime is guilty. That has not happened yet. The investigation is not finished. While Trump is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, it is quite premature to say that he has committed no crime. That's what the investigation is working to determine.
So, let's recap, shall we? There is no evidence of Russian collusion because the investigation into that has not yet completed. Once it has, we will see what evidence they present. Of course, Trump, Jr. has admitted to meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss how she could help them against the Clinton campaign, in return for revisiting the Magnitsky Act if they are elected. Why that doesn't look to you like collusion to you, I'm not quite sure. Regardless, moving on, trying to interfere with the investigation could rise to the level of obstruction, regardless of the eventual findings of the investigation. The whole point of obstruction is to try to prevent the discovery of wrongdoing, after all.
Is that a bit clearer now?
Also, the complete opposite of their normal attitude about regulations.
The point of regulations, while they may start at an intent to help the public, quickly becomes another way to limit competition and protect existing companies by setting up barriers to entry.
So, is that an argument that we shouldn't have regulations, or that they should be better implemented?
Seriously, get some perspective. If you made a list of all the unethical and illegal crap that Uber has done, this wouldn't even make the top one hundred.
maybe so, but it was still better than rent-seeking taxi monopolies. like come on, to have it be illegal to take a guy to a place and take money from him for doing so.. unless you have a permit.
Really, you want any person to be able to roll around and pick people up and transport them for a fare, without any kind of oversight or regulation? Sure, what could go wrong?
What happens when the driver is in an accident and the passenger is injured? Who pays? Will the driver's insurance cover it? What happens if there is a fare dispute? Is the fare even disclosed up front? Says who? You really want to negotiate the fare every time you step into some strangers's car? On that point, you really want to get into some rando's car and trust that they're going to take you where you want to go?
You really want taking a taxi to be basically like hitchhiking? Maybe you should think this through for, like, a minute.
You're not the first person to say he's beyond stupid.
There is a legitimate argument that the world is flat: if you look out the window it's plainly obvious.
So the real issue is whether we choose to believe what the government agency tells.
Most contributors on slashdot believe the government lies and cheats on issues to various degeees.
So when people say it's common sense that the world is round, the takeaway for me is those people believe in something because everybody else does. This herd mentality is also "beyond stupid". Time to apply l'hopital.
You think people believe the earth is round because the government says it is? Really?
That would raise awareness of the fact that their personal info would be monetized, leading people to either abandoning the platform due to invasiveness or to people trying to game the system further in order to get extra cash out of the deal
I see no problem with that, considering that's how the big boys make so much money.
It's been shit-hole since obama began chain migration of shitty smelly parasites hindu-chimps into america.
See, this is why no one takes you seriously.
No it's ours. Taken by mandate. Who would volunteer to pay it? Usually spent unwisely. Rarely for the common good. Usually to pander to some cause or make someone (or some group) feel good about themselves. What innovation comes from it we end up paying for again if we want to use it.
No, it's the Federal Reserve's. It says so right on the note. You and I are just borrowing it.
And yet when the Russian Collusion story was revealed to be complete bullshit, you're still subscribed to it... Because not only are you a hypocrite, you're also a fucking moron.
Citation needed. The investigation is still ongoing AFAIK.
from the article:
> Some users argued that they should be allowed to decide what’s “true, fake, or otherwise,”
yes, your feelings affect the facts
except they don't
All of this is bringing into stark relief the fact that perception is reality. Sure, there are facts, and things that independent observers will agree on, that we call objective reality. But all we have is our perception of it. We all have imperfect information about the world around us, and have internal preferences, expectations and biases that color our point of view. We are all constantly sifting information and trying to separate the signal from the noise. One man's signal can be another man's noise.
So we are all deciding, every day, what is true and what's not, based on our own criteria. We have information sources that we respect and trust, and rely on them to tell us about the world; usually without real proof. I'm not saying that all information is of equal value, or that all opinions have equal merit. Science is still a thing. But for most people, their world view has as much to do with their preconceived notions about how the world works, and what is reasonable to expect, as it does with what they can personally verify. Sometimes even more so.
You act like it is a blessing and give out from the Govt to let people KEEP more of their own hard earned money, rather than give it to the govt???
You do realize that that money belongs to the PEOPLE first, not the Govt.
Taxes are given to the govt, but the money belongs first to the people, letting them keep more of their own is they way it should be.
As far as regulations coming down...that too is usually a good thing, as that the more govt stays out of business, the more business can thrive and guess what, more business means more jobs for the populace.
And is it wrong for the more wealthy to get a bit more break on their taxes? Well, considering that half the populace pays no net federal taxes, its no surprise that if you don't pay fucking taxes, you don't get a break on them.
In the cases you listed, the more wealthy are NOT getting anything from the govt, they are having the govt TAKE LESS...that is not the same as giving.
I was merely challenging the idea that the poor vote Democrat so they can get free stuff (essentially the GP's point), by pointing out that rich people also vote to get what they want from government. And it has been shown that wealthy special interests are much better at getting what they want from government. So the idea that the lower class is somehow mooching off the success of the wealthy, and using government to do it, is not accurate.
To your point about money, it does not belong to the people. It belongs to the Federal Reserve; says so right on the note. We are just borrowing it.
"Rich people" pay 85% of the tax burden. Half of the country pays 0%.
Keep spinning lies though.
You sir are a master of irony. Spinning lies indeed.
And what creates wealth? Manufacturing and agriculture. Turning something useless into something useful. The majority of which the weathy West has offshored to China and other cheap labour nations.
Meanwhile the West just pushes money around in service and banking industries creating no wealth at all, just redistributing what's left into the hands of thoss that already control the system.
It's almost as if the people at the top are not the ones creating the wealth and value. And yet, they are the ones reaping most of the rewards. All this talk about labor markets and levels of industriousness ignore the fact that Capitalism is designed in part to accumulate money at the top. The more money you have, the more ability you have to pay other people to create value for you while taking a cut of the value they create. So once can criticize the poor all they want, but the system still functions the same way.
Ah yes, another demoncrat throwing yet another temper tantrum.
"And if you dont show some initiative, you deserve to die, that is what the fanatic capitalist right says, am I correct?
According to 2nd Thessalonians in the bible if one does not work does not eat. You whiny commie demoncrat terrorists keep touting "What if someone is too disabled to work" Well here's the thing, there is no such thing as being "too disabled to work." Even if there truly were those that are too disabled to work, guess what, can't work falls under don't work so either work or die. Those that are "too disabled to work" are truly "too disabled to live"
LOL, you seem nice.
"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 23:22
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7
"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near, so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin." Deuteronomy 15:9
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18
Quoting the Bible is fun, eh? It's almost as if you can find passages to justify any point of view, even for an uncaring prick like yourself.
Minimum wage jobs are not careers is the issue you're failing to recognize with the left's talking point argument. They're entry jobs or part time jobs. They should never be in the conversation about a "living wage" because that's not the purpose of such jobs. Anyone that works for minimum wage for more than six months is doing something very wrong. Show some initiative and strive for more.
What you're failing to recognize is that the structure of the economy is such that there are not enough career track jobs for all of the people who could work them. And there are many people who do not have the faculties to handle complex, demanding jobs. Where do you get the idea of what the "purpose" of these jobs are? Is it ordained somewhere, or are you merely expressing your opinion?
Yep ... and it's true. Dullards & laxrs have no place in a post-modern society.
I don't know about that. You seem pretty unthinking, but you're still here posting.
>they will do whatever it takes to survive regardless of your politics.
Including vote Liberal. That way they get all their lifetime welfare freebies, no questions asked. You and your disgusting ilk are more than happy to punish successful people to pay for the lazy and indolent.
Well, isn't that why rich people vote Republican; to get their lifetimes of tax cuts and elimination of regulations that cost them money to comply with? It seems that, rich or poor, everyone wants something from the government. And rich people are in a much better position to get it; no questions asked.
I'd also add that the people who work for minimum wage work hard for it. If they don't, they are easily replaceable. So your characterization of them and lazy and indolent is quite far off the mark. Perhaps you'd do better to direct your attention towards the very wealthy, if you want to identify the people taking the most advantage. Being wealthy in America is the best advantage of all. Money brings power, yet you focus on the least powerful. Funny.
Condoms are free. Their parents shouldn't have had children they could afford to educate properly to the level required to become self sufficient productive members of society.
So, your suggestion is that they should travel back in time and retroactively not have the children they had? That's quite a practical solution you have there.
Furthermore, working the fast food counter is supposed to be a kid's summer job and off hours for college and pocket money or first car. It is not living wage work for adults. If fast food is your family's primary source of income then you have failed at life and see above about condoms.
The fact that adults are trying to support their families on these jobs should tell you something about the state of the economy and the opportunities available to people. But you'd rather judge and condemn than understand. Has every single adult fast-food worker failed at life? Really, every single one? I'd like to see your data.
It is not my nor anyone else's problem nor responsibility to take care of people who can't be bothered to take care of themselves when perfectly capable and had every opportunity to do so.
No, it's not your responsibility. But you've made some pretty broad assumptions in thinking they are perfectly capable or have had every opportunity. A relative lack of opportunity in the lower class it pretty easy to demonstrate. But again, you're interested in condemning them but not in helping them, based on your perception of their lives and choices, which you actually know nothing about.
Donald Trump is not Hussein Obama
Donald Trump isn't interested in knowing everything every American does every second of every single day
Donald Trump did not ask for those draconian measures
It was the *DEMONCRAPS* who tagged on all those draconian stuffs
This actually started under the Bush Administration. Just sayin'