Page 67 of 147 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977117 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #661
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    You nailed it ! Government "protects" the employees, until the business fails. Then how'd it work out for them ?

    Priceless, btw.

    It is priceless... so the employee can skip off as the owner is left with the debt....


    and Obama wonder why the private sector is not hiring?..Obama is dumber then dirt or working to to destroy the USA

  2. #662
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Have you ever started or run your own business? Your entire post is nothing more than flimsy strawmen and rhetoric. You fail to see the Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities associated with raising the minimum wage.

    Raising the minimum wage increases poverty, it doesn't alleviate it. The association with wages and poverty is slim at best. As I pointed out in a previous post. It has more to do with skill and education. If you raise the minimum wage, it crowds out the lowest skilled and least educated workers. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs. It is not supposed to be a "living wage". If workers are struggling with minimum wage jobs at the moment, and they are underemployed, that's just more evidence that our Economy sucks because of Obama's failed policies. The absolute worst time to raise the minimum wage is also during a recession, because there is a contraction in jobs available, hence more competition for fewer jobs. Youth and minorities end up becoming crowded out of the Labor Market.

    http://www.clevelandfed.org/research.../1999/0201.pdf

    well said Bronson...

    I have yet to attract talented people by offering them 9 bucks an hour...but I will not hire summer workers now..

  3. #663
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 12:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,003

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Yes? Speaking of partisanship?
    Attachment 67142611
    If your objections are ased on your dislike of Obama, then please just say so. I'm discussing one single aspect of the SOTU speech and I think it bears examination not clouded by partisan hatred.
    Assuming that any disagreement with Obama means someone is partisan is a very partisan thing to do.

  4. #664
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: SOTU Address:

    That was an individualized response to another post. Not a generic accusation. I think we may have different interpretations of the term. I think I've adequately explained this.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Assuming that any disagreement with Obama means someone is partisan is a very partisan thing to do.

  5. #665
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    I believe the question was to explain California.

    The government in California is one of the most progressive in the Nation, and the agressive actions they have been taking go back before 2000. That leaves 14 years to answer for.
    The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

    Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  6. #666
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

    Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?
    This is the largest, deepest, pile of excrement that I have seen here in a long time. Conservatism empowers the individual, while disempowering government. Liberalism empowers government, restricting the freedom of the individual. Your post could not be more topsy-turvy bass-ackward.

  7. #667
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

    Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?

    That's alot of words to avoid answering a simple question. Would you care to answer it, or do you intend to just keep the flow of words coming?

    Attempting to question my intelligence, or questioning my ability to reason really is rather juvenile, don't you think?

  8. #668
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

    Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?
    Since this thread is about the SOU speech and Obama performance, here is something you and other supporters will ignore completely just like all the other Obama lies. I doubt seriously that you would have allowed Bush to get away with this BS

    State of the Union 2013 - YouTube

  9. #669
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Do you have any idea what debt service is or even what the actual spending was? Try educating yourself and think for a change. Here, this will help you but doubt seriously that you have any desire to learn actual facts

    Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

    Cuts in the deficit are irrelevant when govt. spending increases which it has every year under Obama.

    So you aren't actually interested in reducing the deficit. Your only interest is actually in spending? Why? Spending money is what drives an ecomomy. When money is spent, some kind of good or service is being provided. People spend money to buy that service or product. The more money that is spent, the more demand is placed on the company that provides the goods or service. When that demand is strong enough, the company hires more people to serve the demand for the goods or services. Those people in turn have more money in their pockets and they buy goods or services as well, placing more demand at more companies to hire people to service those demands. If money isn't spent, then goods and services aren't being moved, and people get laid off. When you cut spending, you cut jobs. Why do you want to cut jobs?

    When you cut spending such as cops, teachers, fire fighters, first responders, you're cutting jobs. When these people have no jobs, and you cut programs like Medicaid, food stamps, Pell Grants, Medicare, what are these people suppose to do to live and keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and pay for school for their kids?

    You're an economic reductionist. You believe in economism. Economism is the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. Human lives are secondary in your considerations. In other words, all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms—or, in still other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist.

    The difference in our views is striking. What is at issue between them is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes first. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end. I see freedom as valuable for it's own sake, not for its economic potential. It's obvious you don't agree.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  10. #670
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    The point I'm making which obviously went over your head, is that you are looking at an annecdotal situation as if it proves your point. Which clearly it doesn't. This is typical of the conservative mind. It relies on inductive reasoning all the time. What you do is make a claim as you've done and then look for assorted instances that you feel proves your claim. But it doesn't. It's a sweeping generality, and nothing more than that. But, it only takes one exception to prove the theory false. I posted several examples. Your claim that no liberal society has ever succeeded is false. On the contrary, all rigid authoritarian societies that that have no concern for the civil rights of their people have failed. Ultimately they collapse whether it's the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Rigid ideologies like fascism, nazism, communism, and all forms of authoritarianism eventually fail. Conservatism has failed as well. It's a rigid ideology. It resists the inevitable change that takes place in nature. People want to be free, and you can't be free under a rigid ideology.

    Conservatism seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. As a result, it never leads. It always follows the innovation of liberalism which never stays in one place. Always behind the curve, always resisting change, always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather than the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possibility of being wrong?
    are you serious?...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •