scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,578
|
Post by scgal on Aug 2, 2022 7:12:02 GMT -5
Nicely written post.. As lengthy as you post is I'll keep mine short "Manufacturing" I'm going to say, most not all manufacturning companies run exactly what you posted. Most people on my floor are around 15-17 and hour probably 25% are single moms it is hard as hell to get by on that. Bigger money is given at the top as it should and so should the bonus. I'm lower mgmt and I make triple what the people on the floor make. And just for clairty I don't give a fuck what someone else makes or what they do. I am calling out the poster that wants to bitch about anothers salary and bonus but don't see it that way for themselves. I personally don't think anyone should give away anything, I do what I do to help people it's what I do. I also don't think the ceo of my company should take less bonus either. I never once bitched about my salary or anyone elses. I used it as an example to explain how the corporate world works. I don't consider top management including the front line workers in the success of the business as "giving anything away." I'm sorry that my point seems to elude you. If that is what your point was I was mistaken. I read it as you were complaining that the top was getting huge bonus and the people on the bottom wasn't and the top should take less to give to the bottom
|
|
Knee Deep in Water Chloe
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 21:04:44 GMT -5
Posts: 14,213
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1980e6
|
Post by Knee Deep in Water Chloe on Aug 2, 2022 9:49:24 GMT -5
This post is completely nutso from top to bottom. I can scarcely figure out where to begin. I guess the biggest question is - why are there people working full-time for your company who are barely getting by? And why do you think that's okay?beyond that *Why is your company giving bonuses to anyone if they can't pay all workers even enough to get by on? *Why are you maligning giving to an organized charity (who might be better equipped to assess need or give in more impactful ways) in favor of a plan for slipping a few bucks to an arbitrary few? *Should employees at your company have to rely on complaining in front of the correct person to get a little extra cash to get by on? *Does your CEO and other upper management walk around to hear who is needy so they can also hand out money? Or is this solely the responsibility of other front line workers to subsidize other front line workers? *How do you know who is the most needy? Like what if those struggling the most just don't happen to be complaining about it when you are around? I don't understand the part where you don't plan a trip or buy a new gun....I'm pretty sure you've talked about taking trips and owning guns. Do you believe that if you buy them with regular money as opposed to "bonus" money they count less? Like keeping regular salary is good, and keeping bonus money is bad? So if someone gets paid $10 million but doesn't get a bonus they are less obligated to give money away than someone who gets paid 100k but got a $5k bonus? And just for clarity, someone telling you that their personal finances are none of your business means just that. It doesn't actually give you any info on what they may or may not give to charity, despite what you have chosen to infer. Nicely written post.. As lengthy as you post is I'll keep mine short "Manufacturing" I'm going to say, most not all manufacturning companies run exactly what you posted. Most people on my floor are around 15-17 and hour probably 25% are single moms it is hard as hell to get by on that. Bigger money is given at the top as it should and so should the bonus. I'm lower mgmt and I make triple what the people on the floor make.
And just for clairty I don't give a fuck what someone else makes or what they do. I am calling out the poster that wants to bitch about anothers salary and bonus but don't see it that way for themselves. I personally don't think anyone should give away anything, I do what I do to help people it's what I do. I also don't think the ceo of my company should take less bonus either. I think this is where an economical philosophy difference comes in between you and I: I interpret the above statement to mean that you think it's perfectly fine to continue the US capitalist economy that perpetuates a complete separation between "have-nots" (the $15 - $17/hour, single mom, floor workers) and the "haves" (the CEOs making literally 300x that amount). I do not think that's okay.
Please know that I have played the capitalist game well. I have two adult children and have been a single mom. I completed my degrees that got me a decent paying job and health insurance when I would have preferred to stay at home and have at least one or two more kids. I put my kids in day care and went into both credit card and student loan debt to be able to climb up the (non) corporate ladder because I understand how the US economy works, and I'm capable of playing the game.
Not everyone is capable of playing the game; those floor workers could easily be paid $30/hour and the CEOs wouldn't be financially affected; they'd still be obscenely rich. That's why we have such disparity in the richest country in the world. Those floor workers should not be suffering like that. They shouldn't have to go into student loan debt just to move up --if they are even capable of moving up. They should be paid in a manner that supports living a lower-middle class US lifestyle.
However, that is an entirely different discussion than why we have school shootings, so I'll stop there.
|
|
daisylu
Junior Associate
Enter your message here...
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 6:04:42 GMT -5
Posts: 7,422
|
Post by daisylu on Aug 2, 2022 10:02:08 GMT -5
Nicely written post.. As lengthy as you post is I'll keep mine short "Manufacturing" I'm going to say, most not all manufacturning companies run exactly what you posted. Most people on my floor are around 15-17 and hour probably 25% are single moms it is hard as hell to get by on that. Bigger money is given at the top as it should and so should the bonus. I'm lower mgmt and I make triple what the people on the floor make.
And just for clairty I don't give a fuck what someone else makes or what they do. I am calling out the poster that wants to bitch about anothers salary and bonus but don't see it that way for themselves. I personally don't think anyone should give away anything, I do what I do to help people it's what I do. I also don't think the ceo of my company should take less bonus either. I think this is where an economical philosophy difference comes in between you and I: I interpret the above statement to mean that you think it's perfectly fine to continue the US capitalist economy that perpetuates a complete separation between "have-nots" (the $15 - $17/hour, single mom, floor workers) and the "haves" (the CEOs making literally 300x that amount). I do not think that's okay.
Please know that I have played the capitalist game well. I have two adult children and have been a single mom. I completed my degrees that got me a decent paying job and health insurance when I would have preferred to stay at home and have at least one or two more kids. I put my kids in day care and went into both credit card and student loan debt to be able to climb up the (non) corporate ladder because I understand how the US economy works, and I'm capable of playing the game.
Not everyone is capable of playing the game; those floor workers could easily be paid $30/hour and the CEOs wouldn't be financially affected; they'd still be obscenely rich. That's why we have such disparity in the richest country in the world. Those floor workers should not be suffering like that. They shouldn't have to go into student loan debt just to move up --if they are even capable of moving up. They should be paid in a manner that supports living a lower-middle class US lifestyle.
However, that is an entirely different discussion than why we have school shootings, so I'll stop there.
You said that much nicer that I could have.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,439
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2022 10:51:16 GMT -5
why 72 hours, scgal? this is the last time i ask, after which i will assume that you won't answer. as to the fear based politicking, it has been the trend since the 60's. have you seen The Power of Nightmares? i recommend it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmaresthis conception of politics has migrated from a neo-con thing into Democratic politics. Ok you keep asking shy 72 hrs. First I should say 3 working days that could take up to 5 day if the purchase was on a saturday. I think that is more than adequate to run a criminal background check on someone. I keep saying it is the people and I will always stand by that. It doesn't matter what the weapon they use it cannot kill anyone until it is used for that purpose no matter how efficient it is for that. The SC already decided that the 2A is for individuals to have the right to bear arms agree or diagree that is it until it is changed. Since that is decided then the people is already being asked to wait 72 hrs that is enough. You mentioned driver license and passports those are not protected rights. right, but that is not enough time for a mental health screening. and you seem to agree that this is important. so, you are either OK with mentally ill people getting guns, or you think 72 hours is enough. i am trying to ascertain which. finally, i would point out that a mentally ill person has no protected right to own guns. i know that some conservatives disagree with this, but i don't think one of them is you, and frankly, i don't care: it has been settled law since 1968. edit: i apologize for repeating this question over and over, but i find your position deeply confusing. i am sure you have thought it through. i am just not understanding your conclusion.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,483
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 2, 2022 10:56:49 GMT -5
Nicely written post.. As lengthy as you post is I'll keep mine short "Manufacturing" I'm going to say, most not all manufacturning companies run exactly what you posted. Most people on my floor are around 15-17 and hour probably 25% are single moms it is hard as hell to get by on that. Bigger money is given at the top as it should and so should the bonus. I'm lower mgmt and I make triple what the people on the floor make. And just for clairty I don't give a fuck what someone else makes or what they do. I am calling out the poster that wants to bitch about anothers salary and bonus but don't see it that way for themselves. I personally don't think anyone should give away anything, I do what I do to help people it's what I do. I also don't think the ceo of my company should take less bonus either. Play make believe.... if you stopped getting your bonuses and your wages froze - would you still think the CEO of your company should get a bonus? What if your wage freeze and bonuses stopped for a second year? and a third year? Would you jump to another employer? What if the other employers were doing the same thing -- upper management kept all their perks and income - but everyone down stream from them gets a pittance or nothing? Would you still be thinking every one above you deserved to partake in the fruits of your labor? How come you get to partake in more of the fruits of your labor (your current income and bonuses and perks) than the people below you are able to take in the fruits of THEIR labor?? FWIW: Back in the 1980's I worked for an employer who basically had three different "faces" - the "face" to the worker bees was "we had a terrible year raises will be based on your reviews we're trying to do the best we can - but some of you won't receive a raise." The second "face" was towards middle management - where the business was doing good - keep up the good work, keep your worker bees producing - here's a nice fat raise - sorry we can't give you a bonus or there wouldn't be any money to distribute to the worker bees. Oh and by the way you (the manager) can decide who to reward with a raise - so their "star employees" or maybe their friends could get a small raise if some of the workers got little or no raise. Notice how the managers didn't get a "bonus" because the worker bees needed to get something... the third "face" was for the department level heads and "C" level people - they got an even FATTER raise than middle management, they got Big Bonuses, they got to go to the "7 day company meeting" all expenses paid to a paradise resort where they were told how awesome and wonderful the business was doing. oh, and they could bring their families, significant others to this "meeting" - which was basically 1 day of meetings in the hotel conference room - the other 6 days were scheduled with "entertainment" for the executives and their families. There's a reason there's a shit ton of confidentiality in Payroll departments and in the area Accounting that handles the budgets and in AP that handles anything to do with high level expenses for the employer. So, lets just say - I'm a little skeptical that the "C" level people would even notice if their raises and bonuses were a little less. The actual issue is that the "C" level people are trapped in competing with other "C" level people.... THAT's why their incomes and compensations need to be so big.... they don't really need the money - they just need to be paid "more" to keep up appearances. OK, that's my view of this issue.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,439
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2022 10:59:15 GMT -5
incidentally, the freedom to leave the country is protected*. so yes, every US citizen has a right to a passport. in fact, one might argue that this right is more fundamental, since you retain this right no matter how mentally ill or disabled you are, whereas driving and firing a weapon will obviously depend on your ABILITY to do so safely.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,370
|
Post by imawino on Aug 2, 2022 14:00:07 GMT -5
This post is completely nutso from top to bottom. I can scarcely figure out where to begin. I guess the biggest question is - why are there people working full-time for your company who are barely getting by? And why do you think that's okay?beyond that *Why is your company giving bonuses to anyone if they can't pay all workers even enough to get by on? *Why are you maligning giving to an organized charity (who might be better equipped to assess need or give in more impactful ways) in favor of a plan for slipping a few bucks to an arbitrary few? *Should employees at your company have to rely on complaining in front of the correct person to get a little extra cash to get by on? *Does your CEO and other upper management walk around to hear who is needy so they can also hand out money? Or is this solely the responsibility of other front line workers to subsidize other front line workers? *How do you know who is the most needy? Like what if those struggling the most just don't happen to be complaining about it when you are around? I don't understand the part where you don't plan a trip or buy a new gun....I'm pretty sure you've talked about taking trips and owning guns. Do you believe that if you buy them with regular money as opposed to "bonus" money they count less? Like keeping regular salary is good, and keeping bonus money is bad? So if someone gets paid $10 million but doesn't get a bonus they are less obligated to give money away than someone who gets paid 100k but got a $5k bonus? And just for clarity, someone telling you that their personal finances are none of your business means just that. It doesn't actually give you any info on what they may or may not give to charity, despite what you have chosen to infer. Nicely written post.. As lengthy as you post is I'll keep mine short "Manufacturing" I'm going to say, most not all manufacturning companies run exactly what you posted. Most people on my floor are around 15-17 and hour probably 25% are single moms it is hard as hell to get by on that. Bigger money is given at the top as it should and so should the bonus. I'm lower mgmt and I make triple what the people on the floor make. And just for clairty I don't give a fuck what someone else makes or what they do. I am calling out the poster that wants to bitch about anothers salary and bonus but don't see it that way for themselves. I personally don't think anyone should give away anything, I do what I do to help people it's what I do. I also don't think the ceo of my company should take less bonus either. Did you feel that your response related at all back to the questions asked?
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,578
|
Post by scgal on Aug 4, 2022 8:02:13 GMT -5
Nicely written post.. As lengthy as you post is I'll keep mine short "Manufacturing" I'm going to say, most not all manufacturning companies run exactly what you posted. Most people on my floor are around 15-17 and hour probably 25% are single moms it is hard as hell to get by on that. Bigger money is given at the top as it should and so should the bonus. I'm lower mgmt and I make triple what the people on the floor make.
And just for clairty I don't give a fuck what someone else makes or what they do. I am calling out the poster that wants to bitch about anothers salary and bonus but don't see it that way for themselves. I personally don't think anyone should give away anything, I do what I do to help people it's what I do. I also don't think the ceo of my company should take less bonus either. I think this is where an economical philosophy difference comes in between you and I: I interpret the above statement to mean that you think it's perfectly fine to continue the US capitalist economy that perpetuates a complete separation between "have-nots" (the $15 - $17/hour, single mom, floor workers) and the "haves" (the CEOs making literally 300x that amount). I do not think that's okay.
Please know that I have played the capitalist game well. I have two adult children and have been a single mom. I completed my degrees that got me a decent paying job and health insurance when I would have preferred to stay at home and have at least one or two more kids. I put my kids in day care and went into both credit card and student loan debt to be able to climb up the (non) corporate ladder because I understand how the US economy works, and I'm capable of playing the game.
Not everyone is capable of playing the game; those floor workers could easily be paid $30/hour and the CEOs wouldn't be financially affected; they'd still be obscenely rich. That's why we have such disparity in the richest country in the world. Those floor workers should not be suffering like that. They shouldn't have to go into student loan debt just to move up --if they are even capable of moving up. They should be paid in a manner that supports living a lower-middle class US lifestyle.
However, that is an entirely different discussion than why we have school shootings, so I'll stop there.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply... Yes I do think we are different economically. I would like to see the lower paid positions get paid more or have a good pathway forward I do not think it should come at the expense of others salaries. The pay will only be what the market will bear high and low. That is how it is and it will not change. I do not like it but I accept it and work within its parameters do what I can do to help others.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,578
|
Post by scgal on Aug 4, 2022 8:04:00 GMT -5
incidentally, the freedom to leave the country is protected*. so yes, every US citizen has a right to a passport. in fact, one might argue that this right is more fundamental, since you retain this right no matter how mentally ill or disabled you are, whereas driving and firing a weapon will obviously depend on your ABILITY to do so safely. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law The actual possesion of a passport is not a named protected right in the constitution.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,578
|
Post by scgal on Aug 4, 2022 8:06:46 GMT -5
Nicely written post.. As lengthy as you post is I'll keep mine short "Manufacturing" I'm going to say, most not all manufacturning companies run exactly what you posted. Most people on my floor are around 15-17 and hour probably 25% are single moms it is hard as hell to get by on that. Bigger money is given at the top as it should and so should the bonus. I'm lower mgmt and I make triple what the people on the floor make. And just for clairty I don't give a fuck what someone else makes or what they do. I am calling out the poster that wants to bitch about anothers salary and bonus but don't see it that way for themselves. I personally don't think anyone should give away anything, I do what I do to help people it's what I do. I also don't think the ceo of my company should take less bonus either. Play make believe.... if you stopped getting your bonuses and your wages froze - would you still think the CEO of your company should get a bonus? What if your wage freeze and bonuses stopped for a second year? and a third year? Would you jump to another employer? What if the other employers were doing the same thing -- upper management kept all their perks and income - but everyone down stream from them gets a pittance or nothing? Would you still be thinking every one above you deserved to partake in the fruits of your labor? How come you get to partake in more of the fruits of your labor (your current income and bonuses and perks) than the people below you are able to take in the fruits of THEIR labor?? FWIW: Back in the 1980's I worked for an employer who basically had three different "faces" - the "face" to the worker bees was "we had a terrible year raises will be based on your reviews we're trying to do the best we can - but some of you won't receive a raise." The second "face" was towards middle management - where the business was doing good - keep up the good work, keep your worker bees producing - here's a nice fat raise - sorry we can't give you a bonus or there wouldn't be any money to distribute to the worker bees. Oh and by the way you (the manager) can decide who to reward with a raise - so their "star employees" or maybe their friends could get a small raise if some of the workers got little or no raise. Notice how the managers didn't get a "bonus" because the worker bees needed to get something... the third "face" was for the department level heads and "C" level people - they got an even FATTER raise than middle management, they got Big Bonuses, they got to go to the "7 day company meeting" all expenses paid to a paradise resort where they were told how awesome and wonderful the business was doing. oh, and they could bring their families, significant others to this "meeting" - which was basically 1 day of meetings in the hotel conference room - the other 6 days were scheduled with "entertainment" for the executives and their families. There's a reason there's a shit ton of confidentiality in Payroll departments and in the area Accounting that handles the budgets and in AP that handles anything to do with high level expenses for the employer. So, lets just say - I'm a little skeptical that the "C" level people would even notice if their raises and bonuses were a little less. The actual issue is that the "C" level people are trapped in competing with other "C" level people.... THAT's why their incomes and compensations need to be so big.... they don't really need the money - they just need to be paid "more" to keep up appearances. OK, that's my view of this issue. good post and I agree. This is all too much how it is I just accept it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,439
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 4, 2022 11:52:11 GMT -5
incidentally, the freedom to leave the country is protected*. so yes, every US citizen has a right to a passport. in fact, one might argue that this right is more fundamental, since you retain this right no matter how mentally ill or disabled you are, whereas driving and firing a weapon will obviously depend on your ABILITY to do so safely. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law The actual possesion of a passport is not a named protected right in the constitution. neither is the unlimited (and unregulated) right to bear arms. if that were not the case, then i could have anti-aircraft weapons (and believe me, i would. i am worried about government drones, and i would buy them in a heartbeat to protect against that). free speech also has limitations, obviously. Alex Jones now understands that, if he didn't before. my point is that the freedom of movement and the right to speech and bear arms are all limited and are all constitutionally protected, according to constitutional scholars.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 4, 2022 12:20:04 GMT -5
That's why I don't bother addressing her "points." I thought there might have been an opportunity for discussion previously. I had raised a point on another issue, and she admitted it would be an interesting discussion and wanted to come back to it at a later time. I made the invitation at least two or three times to address it, and was ignored each time. Here too, there have been several points raised that directly rebut or refute what she says and the actual substance of those is not addressed. The basic difference between liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers is this: Liberal thinkers argue based on logic, science, and reason, and are always open to changing their beliefs if the logic, facts, and reason dictate. Conservative thinkers argue based on belief and fear, and will almost never change those beliefs no matter what logic, facts, and reason dictate. They resist new information, because even to address it necessarily means that their previous beliefs may have been in error. That is anathema to those governed by belief. They are generally far too emotionally invested in maintaining the status quo, even if it is in error. It is simple enough to be wrong. Admitting you were wrong is far more difficult. I think liberals argue on feelings, fear. and they twist what they can out of any data and logic to fit their agenda. As conservatives I feel the same as you most on fear of the status quo changing and will twist any data and logic to fit their agenda. As far as the political spectrum I consider myself a libertarian with conservative values. I am open to more enhanced gun purchasing measures. I honestly think the issue is people. Our society is declining and a weapon is not the reason. Corporate gains is not the reason Why do you suppose that is? It's not 'godlessness". It's not liberals. WHY is your society declining?
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,971
Member is Online
|
Post by raeoflyte on Aug 4, 2022 13:52:28 GMT -5
I think liberals argue on feelings, fear. and they twist what they can out of any data and logic to fit their agenda. As conservatives I feel the same as you most on fear of the status quo changing and will twist any data and logic to fit their agenda. As far as the political spectrum I consider myself a libertarian with conservative values. I am open to more enhanced gun purchasing measures. I honestly think the issue is people. Our society is declining and a weapon is not the reason. Corporate gains is not the reason Why do you suppose that is? It's not 'godlessness". It's not liberals. WHY is your society declining? She already said it's liberals. Pointing out inequities and trying for better. They should just accept the bad things.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,439
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 4, 2022 13:59:23 GMT -5
Why do you suppose that is? It's not 'godlessness". It's not liberals. WHY is your society declining? She already said it's liberals. Pointing out inequities and trying for better. They should just accept the bad things. if it is liberals, i would like her to be more specific. the bill of rights was a liberal set of amendments. the second amendment is inherently liberal. so, one could argue that liberalism like the 2nd amendment is (part of) the problem, but i don't think that is what scgal is arguing. some clarity in this discussion would be good. this is the second time i have asked for that.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 4, 2022 14:10:31 GMT -5
ROTFLMAO! It's liberals? It's the massive income inequality, keeping poor people poor. Poor black single moms in social housing, working 2 jobs and can't keep an eye on their kids who join gangs. Poor people who are sick. Poor people who are hungry. Republicans cut, cut, cut social spending on anything which helps the poor, from school lunches to food stamps to SNAP to AFDC, etc. It's not the liberals. it's also the nut jobs who belive every insane conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. Again, not liberals.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,445
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 4, 2022 14:24:32 GMT -5
She already said it's liberals. Pointing out inequities and trying for better. They should just accept the bad things. if it is liberals, i would like her to be more specific. the bill of rights was a liberal set of amendments. the second amendment is inherently liberal. so, one could argue that liberalism like the 2nd amendment is (part of) the problem, but i don't think that is what scgal is arguing. some clarity in this discussion would be good. this is the second time i have asked for that.and I hope you're not holding your breath waiting on a response. all she does is spout talking points, insult those who don't agree with her, and ignore things she doesn't want to (can't) answer. rinse and repeat.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 4, 2022 14:27:12 GMT -5
How odd! Value Buy does the same thing! I guess Repubs can't back up their talking points. They just run away, and refuse to answer.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,559
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 4, 2022 14:28:54 GMT -5
She already said it's liberals. Pointing out inequities and trying for better. They should just accept the bad things. if it is liberals, i would like her to be more specific. the bill of rights was a liberal set of amendments. the second amendment is inherently liberal. so, one could argue that liberalism like the 2nd amendment is (part of) the problem, but i don't think that is what scgal is arguing. some clarity in this discussion would be good. this is the second time i have asked for that. How many of what we would generally consider "societal advances" were NOT liberal ideas? That discussion might also prove interesting.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,971
Member is Online
|
Post by raeoflyte on Aug 4, 2022 14:28:56 GMT -5
You keep repeating the tired NRA talking points. The fact is, when used as it is intended, a gun will cause injury or death to a living entity. That is its purpose. Ignoring that is idiotic, and repeating that it is not the gun is ridiculous, of course it’s the gun. So, you take back your previous comment about not being able to perform a mental health evaluation in 72 hours was a reason you are opposed to it? You are ok if a background check takes more than 72 hours? A background check is unlikely to identify those who are “mentally I’ll” which is what you claim the people who carry out these shootings have to be. So, according to you, we cannot do mental health evaluations in 72 hours, and you do not trust physicians to do them honestly, so we cannot do this. Do you deny saying that? Talking points or not truth is truth. The fact is nothing is a weapon until it is used for that purpose. I have many firearms none killed anyone. There are other reasons why to own a firearm. To ignore that is moronic. I would not use any of my AR's for a home intruder. I do use my AR's for competition shooting well husband does. The ones I carry daily are for person protection and yes they will cause damage and death preferrably death since I will not shoot to wound only to kill. As far as my past comments I will address I am willing to see a 72 hr background check it is mainly for criminal activity and probably would only be good if there was a good database to facilitate it. If a mental check could be done in that time great. Physicians like your self who believe in guns are the problem I would not trust to make a sound judgement if a person should have a firearm.
I keep saying its the people I don't know how to fix it but gun bans are not the way more than likely make the problem worse.
I have not made my opinion known why I think we are here now with all the shooting I will do it now. The coddling and all the fairness crap that has been spewing out of dems and liberals mouth for the past 35 years are setting people off. They think where's mine, why can't I, why do I have to work etc. People used to be prideful to go to work now its a chore. There is nothing wrong with a company's CEO making 500 million a year and the janitor getting minimum wage. Yet the company's are villified for not being fair. Heaven forbid if a kid has to try out for a sports team instead of just signing up. The pandemic made it worse lets put FRONT LINE WORKERS on a pedastal call them supermen oh brother, lets all work from home now people whine because they are called back to work, ooh my kids my family life fucking christ sakes grow the fuck up. The more I think about it all the shooting lie on the liberals and dems feet.These are her words for the why we have so many shootings. And just in case -- this isn't my opinion and I vehemently disagree. But she said her why. We can keep asking her, and she'll continue to say she cares about kids and victims, but their death and torment by shooting has absolutely nothing to do with guns.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 4, 2022 14:45:34 GMT -5
The coddling and all the fairness crap that has been spewing out of dems and liberals mouth for the past 35 years are setting people off. They think where's mine, why can't I, why do I have to work etc. People used to be prideful to go to work now its a chore. There is nothing wrong with a company's CEO making 500 million a year and the janitor getting minimum wage. Yet the company's are villified for not being fair. Heaven forbid if a kid has to try out for a sports team instead of just signing up. The pandemic made it worse lets put FRONT LINE WORKERS on a pedastal call them supermen oh brother, lets all work from home now people whine because they are called back to work, ooh my kids my family life fucking christ sakes grow the fuck up. The more I think about it all the shooting lie on the liberals and dems feet.
Interesting. Canada has all that, exactly that, and yet our shootings pale in comparison. We just had our 17th homicide of the year, in a city of over 4 million people. I challenge scgal to name ONE city of similar population density with 17 murders this year. Just one. So, it CAN'T be what she said, with the child coddling, 'fairness crap", front line workers on pedestals, and janitors making minimum wage, and we don't have people butchering each other.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,439
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 4, 2022 14:51:47 GMT -5
The coddling and all the fairness crap that has been spewing out of dems and liberals mouth for the past 35 years are setting people off. They think where's mine, why can't I, why do I have to work etc. People used to be prideful to go to work now its a chore. There is nothing wrong with a company's CEO making 500 million a year and the janitor getting minimum wage. Yet the company's are villified for not being fair. Heaven forbid if a kid has to try out for a sports team instead of just signing up. The pandemic made it worse lets put FRONT LINE WORKERS on a pedastal call them supermen oh brother, lets all work from home now people whine because they are called back to work, ooh my kids my family life fucking christ sakes grow the fuck up. The more I think about it all the shooting lie on the liberals and dems feet.Interesting. Canada has all that, exactly that, and yet our shootings pale in comparison. We just had our 17th homicide of the year, in a city of over 4 million people. I challenge scgal to name ONE city of similar population density with 17 murders this year. Just one. So, it CAN'T be what she said, with the child coddling, 'fairness crap", front line workers on pedestals, and janitors making minimum wage, and we don't have people butchering each other. the UK and Australia have similar liberalism and no real problem with gun violence. so, i agree, it is something uniquely American. as i said before, i think i know. i think most of us do, intuitively. the real question then becomes if we have the courage to change, or will we just accept 100 people unnecessarily killed per day. my bet is on the latter. after all, 300 people per day are dying of covid, and we are not doing shit about it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,439
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 4, 2022 14:56:05 GMT -5
PS- thanks for reposting that. so the liberalism in question is "coddling" basically. we are not manly enough. we are a bunch of pussies. so, here is my next question:
are we REALLY more of a bunch of pussies now than we were in 1973? RvW is gone. so is the better part of the VRA. income disparity is worse. more people are living below the poverty line than then. more people have zero dollars in wealth. the quality of our air and drinking water is down. housing is out of reach for more Americans. FMW in real terms has fallen 30%. Junior Colleges are no longer free. we have all KINDS of conservative reforms in taxes, schools, etc. it would be VERY difficult to argue that we are MORE liberal than we were in 1973.
so, why did we not have MORE of a problem in 1973? did it really take 50 more years for conservatives to get pissed off enough to shoot up schools? i don't think that excuse makes sense. it HAS to be something else.
what is it?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,425
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 4, 2022 17:34:02 GMT -5
Jamie Raskin Claims Republicans Are Reading Second Amendment Wrong: ‘What We’re Getting … is Just Repetition of Dogma’Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) believes the Republicans are getting the Second Amendment completely wrong. Speaking with Floyd Abrams on the Wednesday edition of his podcast Speaking Freely, Raskin detailed his journey with the assault weapons ban that passed the House last Friday. The conversation with Abrams, the father of Mediaite founder Dan Abrams, took place right before Friday’s successful vote. “We’re hoping that this will be, you know, one of the final things that we do before we break for the August recess,” Raskin said. “I mean, we’ve been treated to these bloody spectacles of mass shootings and massacres of school children, grocery shoppers, people in churches, people in synagogues, we need to act, we need to take it seriously.” Raskin blamed the slow process on Republicans who, in his eyes, struggle to understand the Second Amendment. “What we’re getting from our colleagues across the aisle is just repetition of dogmas about the Second Amendment that are refuted, um, by the text of the Constitution,” Raskin proclaimed. “They get up and they say, you know, ‘Raskin just wants to repeal the Second Amendment.’ I don’t want them to repeal the Second Amendment. I want them to read the Second Amendment.” He continued, “I want them to read Justice (Antonin) Scalia’s opinion in the Heller decision, which says that the Second Amendment accepts reasonable gun safety regulation in pursuit of the public safety.” Scalia, in his 2008 Supreme Court decision for the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, said the rights of the Second Amendment were not unlimited, “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” “Just read the bills,” Raskin pleaded. “But the NRA thrives off of the dogma that you — they can’t allow one bit of regulation, no matter how reasonable otherwise, you know, everybody’s guns are gonna be confiscated. It’s absolute BS and nonsense.” Jamie Raskin Claims Republicans Are Reading Second Amendment Wrong: ‘What We’re Getting … is Just Repetition of Dogma’
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,959
|
Post by hurley1980 on Aug 4, 2022 17:41:01 GMT -5
Wait a minute....wasn't the world full of a bunch of peace loving, hippie liberals back in the 60's and 70s? Why weren't there a bunch of mass murders back then (cult suicides aside) I'm even more confused, because so many of those hippie liberals from the 60's and 70's are now the Trump loving gun enthusiasts boomers, aren't they? Maybe my timing is off, but weren't most of the kids at Woodstock around 18-22 years old? That would have made them the first year boomers born between 1948-1951? That's boomer generation right? What the hell happened to them?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 4, 2022 19:06:31 GMT -5
Wait a minute....wasn't the world full of a bunch of peace loving, hippie liberals back in the 60's and 70s? Why weren't there a bunch of mass murders back then (cult suicides aside) I'm even more confused, because so many of those hippie liberals from the 60's and 70's are now the Trump loving gun enthusiasts boomers, aren't they? Maybe my timing is off, but weren't most of the kids at Woodstock around 18-22 years old? That would have made them the first year boomers born between 1948-1951? That's boomer generation right? What the hell happened to them? Well, I’m still here and have never owned a gun. I guess I pulled a trigger on my dad’s .22 rifle at a rural 10 times. That’s it. Donnadub has never pulled a trigger. We are 70 and 68.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,216
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Aug 4, 2022 19:18:49 GMT -5
Wait a minute....wasn't the world full of a bunch of peace loving, hippie liberals back in the 60's and 70s? Why weren't there a bunch of mass murders back then (cult suicides aside) I'm even more confused, because so many of those hippie liberals from the 60's and 70's are now the Trump loving gun enthusiasts boomers, aren't they? Maybe my timing is off, but weren't most of the kids at Woodstock around 18-22 years old? That would have made them the first year boomers born between 1948-1951? That's boomer generation right? What the hell happened to them? I'm thinking no. Only a small subset of humans in the US went to Woodstock. The most likely profile for a mass shooter is male, white, and between the ages of 18 and 30. www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/gun-ownership-numbers-us-cec/index.htmlWhite men have the highest rates of gun ownership
Three in 10 adults say they personally own a gun, while four in 10 say they live in a household where someone owns a gun, according to a 2017 survey from Pew Research Center.
On the whole, gun owners are more likely to be White and male. They're also more likely to live in rural areas and identify as Republican.
About 48% of White men say they own a gun, the Pew survey found. By contrast, 24% of White women and 24% of non-White men said they owned a gun. Women of color reported the lowest rates of gun ownership at 16%.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a stark partisan divide in gun ownership. About 44% of adults who identify as Republican or lean Republican say they own a gun, while just 20% of those who identify as Democrat or lean Democrat say they do, according to Pew.
Where a person lives also plays a role. The Pew survey found that 46% of those who lived in rural areas said they owned a gun, while only 28% of suburbanites and 19% of city dwellers owned a gun.
And while about half of gun owners own one or two guns, 8% of gun owners own 10 or more -- a figure that amounts to about 40% of the total US gun stock, according to the report.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,578
|
Post by scgal on Aug 4, 2022 20:23:56 GMT -5
PS- thanks for reposting that. so the liberalism in question is "coddling" basically. we are not manly enough. we are a bunch of pussies. so, here is my next question: are we REALLY more of a bunch of pussies now than we were in 1973? RvW is gone. so is the better part of the VRA. income disparity is worse. more people are living below the poverty line than then. more people have zero dollars in wealth. the quality of our air and drinking water is down. housing is out of reach for more Americans. FMW in real terms has fallen 30%. Junior Colleges are no longer free. we have all KINDS of conservative reforms in taxes, schools, etc. it would be VERY difficult to argue that we are MORE liberal than we were in 1973. so, why did we not have MORE of a problem in 1973? did it really take 50 more years for conservatives to get pissed off enough to shoot up schools? i don't think that excuse makes sense. it HAS to be something else. what is it? You are actually proving my point. It was better 50 years ago for raising families. 1 paycheck paid the bills (i'm not bashing women for wanting a career or that women were treated as 2nd class citizens) but when a parent stayed home the home life was better. Kids actually had to tryout for a sport fast forward 50 years now sign a sheet of paper your kid is on a team. Kids are growing up feeling entitled. People don't even want to work anymore. If your kid spells their name correctly on a test lets give them 10pts to get a passing grade. They don't have to earn anything. I get blasted for expecting people to work for what they want. I get blasted for voicing my opinion on another thread that people should payoff their student loans before they make large purchases you know responsibility. You mentioned conservatives shooting up schools, probably crybaby liberals.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,578
|
Post by scgal on Aug 4, 2022 20:30:22 GMT -5
Wait a minute....wasn't the world full of a bunch of peace loving, hippie liberals back in the 60's and 70s? Why weren't there a bunch of mass murders back then (cult suicides aside) I'm even more confused, because so many of those hippie liberals from the 60's and 70's are now the Trump loving gun enthusiasts boomers, aren't they? Maybe my timing is off, but weren't most of the kids at Woodstock around 18-22 years old? That would have made them the first year boomers born between 1948-1951? That's boomer generation right? What the hell happened to them? You are quite yound (actually so am I for woodstock I was 3). I had aunts and uncles that went there were pictures of cars on fire and turned over. For the most part it was peaceful but not without destruction either amazingly on 3 people died. I drove up to Bethel when I was 18 even thou it was 15 years later it gave me goosebumps thinking how many people were there
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,205
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 4, 2022 20:40:51 GMT -5
PS- thanks for reposting that. so the liberalism in question is "coddling" basically. we are not manly enough. we are a bunch of pussies. so, here is my next question: are we REALLY more of a bunch of pussies now than we were in 1973? RvW is gone. so is the better part of the VRA. income disparity is worse. more people are living below the poverty line than then. more people have zero dollars in wealth. the quality of our air and drinking water is down. housing is out of reach for more Americans. FMW in real terms has fallen 30%. Junior Colleges are no longer free. we have all KINDS of conservative reforms in taxes, schools, etc. it would be VERY difficult to argue that we are MORE liberal than we were in 1973. so, why did we not have MORE of a problem in 1973? did it really take 50 more years for conservatives to get pissed off enough to shoot up schools? i don't think that excuse makes sense. it HAS to be something else. what is it? You are actually proving my point. It was better 50 years ago for raising families. 1 paycheck paid the bills (i'm not bashing women for wanting a career or that women were treated as 2nd class citizens) but when a parent stayed home the home life was better. Kids actually had to tryout for a sport fast forward 50 years now sign a sheet of paper your kid is on a team. Kids are growing up feeling entitled. People don't even want to work anymore. If your kid spells their name correctly on a test lets give them 10pts to get a passing grade. They don't have to earn anything. I get blasted for expecting people to work for what they want. I get blasted for voicing my opinion on another thread that people should payoff their student loans before they make large purchases you know responsibility. You mentioned conservatives shooting up schools, probably crybaby liberals. 50 years ago I was wishing my abusive mother wasn't home all the time to hit and belittle me. And I never had to try out for a sport. Fast forward 50 years and my three granddaughters all have full time jobs.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,559
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 4, 2022 20:57:09 GMT -5
PS- thanks for reposting that. so the liberalism in question is "coddling" basically. we are not manly enough. we are a bunch of pussies. so, here is my next question: are we REALLY more of a bunch of pussies now than we were in 1973? RvW is gone. so is the better part of the VRA. income disparity is worse. more people are living below the poverty line than then. more people have zero dollars in wealth. the quality of our air and drinking water is down. housing is out of reach for more Americans. FMW in real terms has fallen 30%. Junior Colleges are no longer free. we have all KINDS of conservative reforms in taxes, schools, etc. it would be VERY difficult to argue that we are MORE liberal than we were in 1973. so, why did we not have MORE of a problem in 1973? did it really take 50 more years for conservatives to get pissed off enough to shoot up schools? i don't think that excuse makes sense. it HAS to be something else. what is it? You are actually proving my point. It was better 50 years ago for raising families. 1 paycheck paid the bills (i'm not bashing women for wanting a career or that women were treated as 2nd class citizens) but when a parent stayed home the home life was better. Kids actually had to tryout for a sport fast forward 50 years now sign a sheet of paper your kid is on a team. Kids are growing up feeling entitled. People don't even want to work anymore. If your kid spells their name correctly on a test lets give them 10pts to get a passing grade. They don't have to earn anything. I get blasted for expecting people to work for what they want. I get blasted for voicing my opinion on another thread that people should payoff their student loans before they make large purchases you know responsibility. You mentioned conservatives shooting up schools, probably crybaby liberals.Pretty sure you would lose that bet.
|
|