How to win an argument with Liberals-Progressives-Socialists-etc...

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Thursday, June 16, 2011 09:23
VIEWED: 32999
PAGE 29 of 31

PREV PAGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NEXT PAGE

RIONAEIRE

Monday, June 13, 2011 11:23 PM

I agree with New Old about the smoking thing.

Frem, do Sudbury schools account for kids who need extra help in school, such as physical disabilities or mental health/developmental differences/autism/etc.? I'll look Sudbury up on wikipedia and see what I think about it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

SKYDIVELIFE

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:28 PM

Kwicko:

I used smoking as an example, because of its less-controversial/established political talking point.

Smoking is addictive, and deadly. But it is still a persons choice to imbibe. Likewise, if a business owner chooses to permit smoking in their establishment, they SHOULD have that choice.

The government SHOULDN't have a say on whether a person imbibes harmful toxins (provided they do not cause you to harm others), nor whether a business owner allows such partaking on his property.

When I hear people say that the government is "on our backs", or a "Nanny State", I think of the "smoking bans" that have been put into effect.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think smoking is ok. Its definatly not good for you. But I don't have the right to tell you not to do it.

Which comes to the crux of my argument. Too many think they have the right to tell others what to do. They don't.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:44 PM

Should the government have the right or ability to tell you, as a business owner, that you can't hire illegals to work for you?

I mean, if it "doesn't hurt anyone else", that is. Say you've got enough extra work for one guy at $4/hr, but if you had to pay someone $7.50/hr to do it, you'd just put in longer hours and do it yourself. So would hiring an illegal, or hiring someone illegally, be okay with you?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

SKYDIVELIFE

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:55 PM

Kwicko wrote: "Should the government have the right or ability to tell you, as a business owner, that you can't hire illegals to work for you?

I mean, if it "doesn't hurt anyone else", that is. Say you've got enough extra work for one guy at $4/hr, but if you had to pay someone $7.50/hr to do it, you'd just put in longer hours and do it yourself. So would hiring an illegal, or hiring someone illegally, be okay with you?"

Therin lies the rub.

I believe that being an American citizen carries with it certian responsibilities. Yet, my government tells me that I have to hire underqualified workers. Worse yet, I have to pay them a certain wage. And in the last few years, they have told me I have to help pay for their healthcare.

So I have a choice. Hire illegal people, who will work hard (at a fair wage) so I don't report them,

or lazy citizens who will sue me if I fire them?

Yet, if the illegal ones steal from me, who do I report it to?

Its a catch-22. I can't afford to hire the lazy ones, I can't trust the illegals... so, as a small business owner, what am I suppossed to do?

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:10 PM

I must have missed the part where the government requires you to hire "underqualified" workers. What law is that found in?

I prefer to hire qualified people and pay them a fair wage. I've long been an advocate of hiring one $20/hr person WHO IS WORTH THAT AND MORE, instead of hiring two $10/hr people who aren't worth a shit. Reason being, the $20/hr worker will do the work, AND allow you the freedom to do YOUR work, while the two not-shit workers will not only not get their work done, but soak up so much of your time that you won't get YOUR work done. So for the same money outlay, you can get double the work done, or half the work you're now doing. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I've worked for a lot of people who thought in terms of quantity instead of quality when it came to their employees: more must be better. One place replaced me with no less than FIVE full-time people when I left, rather than give me more money to stay. That place no longer exists. Last I heard, the owner had lost his million-dollar home, his Jaguar, his Mercedes, AND his Hummer H2, along with his trophy wife, when he lost his business by trying to hire cheaper labor. I've also been asked to give a deposition regarding some shady dealings he undertook regarding his sales tax reporting, too; he asked me to lie for him, and I told him point blank that I was long past taking any kind of orders from him, and I had no intention of lying to cover his ass.

He was a big advocate of cheap labor, so now he may well get the chance to BE cheap labor, because he may well be going to prison.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NIKI2

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:46 PM

Wow. I go away for a couple of days, and LOOK at this thing!

KPO:

Quote:
I don't know, amigo. It depends what you mean by 'do without'. As I said above, you and I have different criteria for whether government programmes/offices are worthwhile. If you mean how many from your list could we remove before the country starts to completely fall apart at the seams, I would guess maybe 95% (that's not the same as 95% of funding mind). If you mean how many could we remove without it being detrimental to the country (in more subtle ways), I would say much less. I think all of the committees etc on your list have a theoretical 'raison d'etre'; and most of them are fulfilling some of that, and subtly benefiting society.

Well said. I don’t think we reg’lar folk REALLY know what each of those things does or is intended to do, so I’ll withhold any judgment. Personally, I think it’s just so much more convenient and comfy to scream “DO AWAY WITH (whatever)” than it is to actually learn about the thing and make an informed decision. I’ve seen stuff mocked as stupid which, when I looked into it, had a really worthwhile relevance, it just didn’t sound like it by title or short quip about what it does.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NIKI2

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:48 PM

Quote:
Can't speak for the other 49 states, but that was the way it WAS here in California, before Prop 13. Local communities banded together in school districts, set local property tax rates, financed the schools the way they wanted to, within certain broad federal and state limits. Even then, a lot of the budget money came from the state. Along came Prop 13, capped local communities' ability to raise property taxes. They didn't, and still don't, have a lot of other sources of income under California law. So the state stepped in, gave them tons of money, kept the schools open and functioning. But, "Them that provides the gold, makes the rules." So the state started overseeing things, and making rules and regulations for the schools, not all of which were a good fit to every community.

Once again, well said NewOld (I’m liking you better and better, probably because you’re the first person here beside me who is able to speak up intelligently about California, really KNOWS it and can speak to the facts about our state (apologies to Mincinbeast and Rue, both Californians I miss a LOT). GREAT to have you here!

I would add, however, the cuts going on all over the country to states which is severely affecting the educational system. It’s not just here, and it’s not just “Them that provides the gold, makes the rules”, but “Them that provides the gold can then take it away whenever they want”, and that’s precisely what’s happening, to fire departments, police, teachers and schools, among others.

As a smoker who has tried to quit over and over for decades, I’m on the fence about laws prohibiting smoking. I pretty much agree with Byte’s summing up of the situation; I have no problem not smoking inside, but it gets to me when it’s illegal OUTSIDE, as anyone can move away if they want to, and some take it to extremes I consider ridiculous. Those are usually “controllers” anyway, and it’s part of their nature. At our local dog park, I had a woman rail at me for smoking—-the park is large enough she could easily stay away from my smoke, and if I was with a group I would happily move away from HER rather than ask her to move (given I rarely take part in the groups that gather there, it wouldn’t be a problem; I’m there for my DOGS, not to sit around chatting and ignoring them, as many do). But she had to make an issue out of it and threatened to call the police; those types I have no use for.

In the end I, like Sky, agree with Byte:

Quote:
stupid and pointless as it is, I have to accept that's how she wanted to live her life.

I also agree with Sky, and have a bumper sticker AND a little sticker inside the house which read “Harm none; do as you wish”. Just ‘cuz I can’t refrain from the snark, that’s a concept Raptor, Wulf and a few others would ABHOR

NewOld; your spell checker is right, it’s “marijuana”. As for

Quote:
employees not allowed to smoke in their workplace hanging around near the public entrance, smoking there in clumps. If they gotta smoke, designate an area behind the building, away from the routes the public HAS TO use.

There we part ways. People generally only get 15-minute breaks...I know from experience how long it takes to get down the elevator and out in the street, and it doesn’t leave a lot of time. Plus we smokers usually took our breaks together, which is why we were in “clumps”. The public “has to use” the entrances and exits for, what, five seconds? I think they could get past us without even breathing one breath...so how much further away would you have us go on our 15-minute breaks? I know there are arguments for and against, but that one does bother me.

Quote:
It can't be illegal EVERYWHERE

Hate to tell ‘ya, but that’s exactly where it’s GOING in California at least.

There’s your “small government” at work...

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c94/Nikovi

NIKI2

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:50 PM

Quote:
In the end, people like Nix argue to be peasants.

Her and their ilk, WANT to be ruled by an "elite".

I just can't stomach it.

Oh, wonderful, Wulf, that’s so great; if you can’t “stomach it”, please just don’t read my posts. Do us both that favor. Aside from lying through your teeth practically every time you reference me, I’m well aware that there’s no communicating with YOU, so just ignore me, ‘kay? Please.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NIKI2

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:50 PM

Terrans, oh, I do like your fire --you say thing in ways I try not to, mind you, but it’s nice to see the fire:

Quote:
Put military spending and the tax code back to Clinton levels and then don't give a damn if the guy gets a blow job. Don't put witch hunters like Ken Starr blowing tax payers money for nothing.

Oh yes oh yes oh YES!

Quote:
Bottom line it's all BS and if we don't pull our heads out of our political you know what, then the US is doomed and the rich right wing will build a new aristocracy with people like David Koch at the head, and you and me bud will be peasants pissing in the wind in Chinese robes.

It’s what they’ve been trying to do for how long, and what they’re halfway to doing RIGHT NOW, what with killing the unions, spending all their time on social policy laws (what happened to “jobs, jobs, jobs” and “smaller government”, again?). We’re already on the road to becoming peasants, and the country’s been pulled so far to the right, they’re on a roll.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NIKI2

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:51 PM

Right on, Kiki:

Quote:
these words are used like religion. They're not defined, and no one ever has to prove what those words mean in practical terms. People are expected to take those ideas on faith. Ideas like freedom, profit, reward.

Don’t forget “liberty” and a few of the other choice buzz-words used around here.

But Frem, I don’t think it deserves its own thread, because we’ve discussed it in so many different other threads, AND because I’ll bet it would end up being one of those Mike-Raptor “jam sessions” more than anything intelligent. But then what do I know?

Kiki, another “right on” for

Quote:
And generally, you'll find this is true. The younger, poorer, darker, and less powerful are disproportionately represented in the fighting forces, and disproportionately absent from the ruling classes. There is a sieve at work which makes it this way

You only have to look back to ‘Nam to see how many who didn’t fit that description managed NOT to end up in the Army, and it’s still true today because of financial reasons and the fact that those people are disproportionately represented in the penal system, and the Army now takes criminals.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

PREV PAGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NEXT PAGE