• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

disneydude said:
LOL...Con...its always fun to watch you shuffle and dance around the facts. I know if makes you uncomfortable knowing that Texas (and Mississippi) have the worst record in the country on people working for minimum wage....straight out of those BLS numbers you love so much (well...maybe not love so much when the numbers don't match your rhetoric).
Click to expand...

Yep, typical liberalism where 500,000 is more than 1.6 million. California has the most making minimum wage and the most on poverty yet you keep ignoring reality. Just like a liberal ignoring that BLS doesn't survey California but the state Department of public service does. Keep showing that Gruber was right
 
disneydude said:
Then by definition....they are making more than the Federal Minimum wage. Bottom line...Texas and Mississippi have the worst record in the nation for people working for minimum wages.
Click to expand...

Yes, until July 2014 Californian made an $8 minimum wage. Try living in California on $8 an hour
 
disneydude said:
Then by definition....they are making more than the Federal Minimum wage. Bottom line...Texas and Mississippi have the worst record in the nation for people working for minimum wages.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. While Texas has the largest number of people workiing at or below minimum wage, as a % of workers paid hourly wage Texas (6.4%) is behind Tennessee (7.4%), Idaho (7.1%), Alabama (6.%), and Arkansas (6.8%).
As for Mississippi....They're number 9 for percent working at or below, and 28th for number.

But in any case, saying "people working minimum wages" does NOT imply Federal minimum wage but implies the minimum wage of their area.
 
disneydude said:
LOL...Con...its always fun to watch you shuffle and dance around the facts. I know if makes you uncomfortable knowing that Texas (and Mississippi) have the worst record in the country on people working for minimum wage....straight out of those BLS numbers you love so much (well...maybe not love so much when the numbers don't match your rhetoric).
Click to expand...

Except BLS does not agree with you Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers 2013 (table 3)
 
j-mac said:
Boo Radley said:
REGULATION NATION: Obama oversees expansion of the regulatory state | TheHill

All the experts say that regulation is smothering business activity...That you think somehow it doesn't matter is laughable.
Click to expand...

Not true, I gave you experts who say they are not. I gave you a study that shows it's not. You seek people who "say" it is. Try finding a study that "shows" it is.



Once again by the force of government...Not through efficiency, or making things better....You're confusing innovation with being forced to do something....But I understand, you see government as the answer.
Click to expand...

Not really, government is forcing safety, both on the work site and environmental safety. But it does inspire innovation, creating new jobs.



Really?

So when you said - "A tax increase will give them an incentive to invest in the business, because it is the cost of NOT investing that goes up, not the cost of investing. " How can that not be taken as anything other than government forcing business to hire if they don't want to get taxed....?
Click to expand...

Incentives are not force. You do know the difference right? In fact, out the other side of the mouth we often hear complaints about a lack of incentives. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Misterveritis said:
We are not the government. What an idiotic thing to say. Unless you are one of the two million busybody bureaucrats hired to spy on us, harass us with IRS questions/audits or the EPA to de-industrialize the nation you are not the government.

Government is evil. Most people are not. I can make an exception in your case if you want to continue to believe you are the government.
Click to expand...

Of course we are. We vote for representatives and vote them out each election cycle. We also lobby and push politicians to do the things we want done. Legislation doesn't pop up out of thin air. Citizens push and pull to get things done. Representatives respond.
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course we are. We vote for representatives and vote them out each election cycle. We also lobby and push politicians to do the things we want done. Legislation doesn't pop up out of thin air. Citizens push and pull to get things done. Representatives respond.
Click to expand...

No. We are not the government. If you want to be that is fine with me. The government is evil. At best it is a necessary evil. At worst an intolerable one. Or if you prefer T. Paine, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
 
Misterveritis said:
No. We are not the government. If you want to be that is fine with me. The government is evil. At best it is a necessary evil. At worst an intolerable one. Or if you prefer T. Paine, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Click to expand...

You must be sad a lot.:lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Not true, I gave you experts who say they are not. I gave you a study that shows it's not. You seek people who "say" it is. Try finding a study that "shows" it is.


Not really, government is forcing safety, both on the work site and environmental safety. But it does inspire innovation, creating new jobs.


Incentives are not force. You do know the difference right? In fact, out the other side of the mouth we often hear complaints about a lack of incentives. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Joe, usually I really enjoy our back and forths. Largely because you don't take what I say to you personally, and go running off to mods. (At least as far as I know)...But on this, we are just not going to get anywhere close to agreement on anything concerning it...You believe that Government has all the answers, and I don't. Period...

So, I am not going to go further with you on this. At least not at this point. And I refuse to bang my head against a wall with you on it. So, have a good day.
 
j-mac said:
Joe, usually I really enjoy our back and forths. Largely because you don't take what I say to you personally, and go running off to mods. (At least as far as I know)...But on this, we are just not going to get anywhere close to agreement on anything concerning it...You believe that Government has all the answers, and I don't. Period...

So, I am not going to go further with you on this. At least not at this point. And I refuse to bang my head against a wall with you on it. So, have a good day.
Click to expand...

No, I've never reported you or really anyone else. The only person I ever reported was the person pretending to be conservative.

But, no, actually the opposite. I've tried to get you to see this, but if you think government is responsible for the economy, then you think it has all the answers and not me. I show that these things have very limited effect, and show studies to back it (not just someone you like saying it). Taxes really have little to no effect on jobs. Regulations are a push, losing some jobs and creating others, but if they are needed, they are needed, regardless of number. The way to combat that is to show those not needed. Not to merely quote a number.
 
Boo Radley said:
You must be sad a lot.:lamo
Click to expand...
Why would you think that? I am a patriot. I am not a counter-revolutionary like the One you support. He seeks to undo the American Revolution and the Civil War. I seek to preserve and protect the nation's founding. It gives me a positive purpose.
 
Misterveritis said:
Why would you think that? I am a patriot. I am not a counter-revolutionary like the One you support. He seeks to undo the American Revolution and the Civil War. I seek to preserve and protect the nation's founding. It gives me a positive purpose.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we'd agree on the definition of patriot. And none of us, including Obama, is a counter-revolutionary. That's just more exaggerating.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure we'd agree on the definition of patriot. And none of us, including Obama, is a counter-revolutionary. That's just more exaggerating.
Click to expand...
Obama certainly is. He seeks to undo the American Revolution and the Civil War. And you follow him. Apparently blindly.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Obama certainly is. He seeks to undo the American Revolution and the Civil War. And you follow him. Apparently blindly.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is utter hyperbolic silliness born from unreasonable hate. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
It is what it is. When you exaggerate beyond the evidence, there has to be a reason. Hate is the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should ask the poster if he "hates" rather than using goofy leftist hyperbole.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps you should ask the poster if he "hates" rather than using goofy leftist hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Do you suggest hate doesn't present itself through objective evidence? I would have to disagree. When you are too willing to believe demonstrable lies, hate is a likely explanation.
 
PLease..


Voters in Canada are just as stupid.
 
"Obama certainly is. He seeks to undo the American Revolution and the Civil War. And you follow him. Apparently blindly."
Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry, but that is utter hyperbolic silliness born from unreasonable hate. :coffeepap
Click to expand...
You have confirmed my last sentence. :)
 
Boo Radley said:
It is what it is. When you exaggerate beyond the evidence, there has to be a reason. Hate is the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...

Says the guy that STILL believes Bush 43 was actually AWOL.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is what it is. When you exaggerate beyond the evidence, there has to be a reason. Hate is the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...

Reason, on my part, and your unwillingness to consider it, is at the root of this. Obama could have been a capitalist instead of a Marxist using crony capitalism to launder money for his party and I would have had far less to be concerned about. Obama could have supported America's allies and sanctioned our enemies instead of toppling our allies and supporting our enemies. I would have had far, far less to be concerned over. Obama could have shunned the actions of a tyrant. Had he done all three he might have been a decent president instead of the one who willingly presided over the decline of the nation.

I suppose to a blind supporter all of that looks like hate.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure we'd agree on the definition of patriot. And none of us, including Obama, is a counter-revolutionary. That's just more exaggerating.
Click to expand...
Then what do you suppose this "Change" thing was all about?
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you suggest hate doesn't present itself through objective evidence? I would have to disagree. When you are too willing to believe demonstrable lies, hate is a likely explanation.
Click to expand...
Anyone who believes lies may be gullible, or naive, like those who voted for Barrack Obama as an example, but that does not mean they "hate".

Do you 'hate' Barrack Obama because he is a serial and non-repentant liar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom