Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

Brick-and-Happy-Gun logo (above) by Munky Wrench, of Bent Wrench Studios

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

This is important...


No one in America should work a forty hour week, for a company (such as McDonald's - the single largest employer of minimum wage workers) that makes over a Billions Dollars a year AFTER paying it's CEO nearly $14 Million Dollars, and not be able to afford to live.  And BTW...? McDonald's actually HELPS it's employees get public assistance! So... Here's a thought... If this company is so wildly successful that it can afford to TRIPLE it's CEO's salary from 2012 to 2013, despite a DROP in sales... Then why am I, the Taxpayer having to subsidize it's Labor costs? And I'm only using Mickey-D's as an example here, obviously the issue goes way beyond them, but...

1) If someone works 40+ Hours a week and still needs public assistance? The Minimum wage is too low. Period.

2) If the Company gets the taxpayer to subsidize their labor costs, and the STILL made less money? Then the CEO doesn't deserve to have his salary TRIPLED in one year. Period.

You want to know where the extra money will come from? Here's a thought: Lower your franchise fees, reduce the pay of ALL of the executives accordingly, and, if necessary, let the industry, as a whole, take a one-time hit and then start growing again, on a more sustainable path, without the taxpayer having to subsidize their labor costs. (And BTW? Raising the minimum wage will mean that McDonald's will sell more hamburgers, even at a slightly higher cost.) (DUH!)

The shareholder won't run. Not in the long-term.

And neither will the customers. If I have to pay 10 cents more for a Big Mac?  Well, that's WAY the fuck down there on the reasons I have not to eat a Big Mac!

And Conservatives? The next time I hear one of you cheap, greedy bastards say that you "honor hard work" or that you'll give an "honest day's pays for an honest day's work...?"

...I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick.

105 comments:

  1. "You want to know where the extra money will come from? Here's a thought: Lower your franchise fees, reduce the pay of ALL of the executives accordingly, and, if necessary, let the industry, as a whole, take a one-time hit and then start growing again, on a more sustainable path, without the taxpayer having to subsidize their labor costs."

    Here's a thought ... why don't they stop paying baseball, football, hockey, soccer, tennis, golf ... ect millions of $$$$ just to play kids games. Gee, let's stop paying all the people who actually DO work in companies.

    I think some people need to quit whining about minimum wage being paid to people who do minimum work. Have you ever seen a McDonalds employee do work? Me neither, so let them keep that minimum wage until they are wise enough to get a REAL JOB.
    Minimum wage jobs are for beginner employees, not the lifer seeking retirement at their selected profession. If someone keeps a minimum wage job so far into their life that they have to whine about their pay, then they should have studied harder in school.
    Have you EVER heard of someone saying they want to retire as a 'burger flipper'? Again, me neither. Liberals seem to expect everything to be handed to them when they do so little to earn what they get. IMHO, the minimum wage should be decreased until those who earn it learn some responsibility. Minimum wage is for liberals who can't find real work and for kids starting out. Of course they make less than everyone else. Duhh. They EARN what they get ... minimum. When they actually start working, then they will get a raise. THAT is how it works in the business world.

    Let me ask you a tough question, Eddie ... did you start out at your current job at the pay rate you are at now? Or did you start out at a lower pay rate and climbed the 'ladder of success' as you increased your knowledge and skills? Well, why in the hell should kids starting out in the workforce be allowed to start at a higher pay rate than the rest of us had to start out at? Huh, why?
    Wait, you'll tell me because everything is so expensive. Well, your prized sports people are the blame for that one. They raise the cost of so many things that are directly related to their pay: cable, tickets ... and every item they endorse. Do you think a company that signs a sport star to endorse their product (and pays them $10million) will LOWER the cost of that product?
    Jeez, that's a stupid question, of course you must think that. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such a stupid whine about minimum wage.

    "And Conservatives? The next time I hear one of you cheap, greedy bastards say that you "honor hard work" or that you'll give an "honest day's pays for an honest day's work...?"

    ...I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick."

    I think a person should get an honest days pay for an honest days work. Now, bring it on, big boy. Perhaps I should provide the brick for you too? Since you poor liberals, making minimum wage, can't afford to buy your own shit.
    It sure is better than you liberals saying that kids should be paid hundreds of dollars for doing nothing at a no-where job while they take 15 breaks a day, as per your union rules.

    God, you liberals are such whiners. Have you EVER thought of actually working for a living? Or do you just want the nation to continue to GIVE you everything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think some people need to quit whining about minimum wage being paid to people who do minimum work. Have you ever seen a McDonalds employee do work? Me neither, so let them keep that minimum wage until they are wise enough to get a REAL JOB."

      Why would a McDonald's employee not be doing "work"? If they weren't performing a service, they wouldn't have to show up at all.

      "Minimum wage jobs are for beginner employees, not the lifer seeking retirement at their selected profession. If someone keeps a minimum wage job so far into their life that they have to whine about their pay, then they should have studied harder in school."

      It would be nice if only teenagers held minimum-wage jobs, but that's not the reality of it. Most of those employees are adults. Another inconvenient reality is that the economy plays a factor, so it's not a pure meritocracy. People with college degrees don't automatically get jobs in their field. What do you suggest for them?

      Also, do you imagine that an increase in education would mean a decrease in minimum-wage jobs? As if college degrees for everyone would mean no more burger-flipping jobs, or what?

      "Of course they make less than everyone else. Duhh."

      Nobody's talking about "less than everyone else". There's always going to be a lowest income level, so "less" is not the issue. Eddie quite clearly specified a need for public assistance and said that the minimum wage is too low.

      "Well, why in the hell should kids starting out in the workforce be allowed to start at a higher pay rate than the rest of us had to start out at? Huh, why?"

      Are you aware that it costs more to live today than it did twenty years ago? If gas was still a dollar a gallon, then you might be able to say that people should get the same pay as they did forty years ago. As the cost of living goes up, wages have to follow.

      "Wait, you'll tell me because everything is so expensive. Well, your prized sports people are the blame for that one."

      So, bread costs more because of baseball players? No, probably not. And even that was the case, so what? People are supposed to starve because of it? I'm not sure how you imagine that's a substitute for a solution.

      "It sure is better than you liberals saying that kids should be paid hundreds of dollars for doing nothing at a no-where job while they take 15 breaks a day, as per your union rules."

      A union enforces 15 breaks a day, but allows its workers to be paid so little that they need public assistance? You didn't think about that at all, obviously.

      "God, you liberals are such whiners. Have you EVER thought of actually working for a living? Or do you just want the nation to continue to GIVE you everything?"

      We're talking about workers. Why should any job take up a full work week and not provide enough to live on? There's no "GIVE" involved there. If the company values the contribution enough to take that much time, then they're obligated to provide a living wage. That's what's rightfully earned by doing full-time work.

      But, if you're going to convince yourself that everyone who earns the minimum wage is uneducated and liberal, then you won't have to care. And you wouldn't want to have to actually care, would you, when it's so easy to find fault with the victims instead?

      Incidentally, what makes you think that Jesus would side with a corporation that pays such high salaries to executives but shortchanges the workers? I'd like to see the specific words of Jesus which inspire your attitude.

      Delete
    2. After all that, you ignored this one: "Do you think a company that signs a sport star to endorse their product (and pays them $10million) will LOWER the cost of that product?"

      Do you really think those endorsement contracts don't raise prices of everything related to the company that pays for that endorsement? If so, then you really have no clue.

      "Incidentally, what makes you think that Jesus would side with a corporation that pays such high salaries to executives but shortchanges the workers?"

      How could you come to a conclusion like that? Making shit up again?

      "So, bread costs more because of baseball players? No, probably not."

      Let's see, athletes used to be paid in the thousands of dollars, now they are paid in the millions of dollars. Perhaps you're right and that income increase has nothing to do with the increase of products sold today. But, I highly doubt you are right. At least you have the CEO's to whine about making so much and leave pro athletes blameless.

      Delete
    3. "After all that, you ignored this one: "Do you think a company that signs a sport star to endorse their product (and pays them $10million) will LOWER the cost of that product?""

      Not all products hire athletes to endorse their products, which is why I made the "bread" reference. I didn't ignore anything. Besides that, advertising is an intrinsic factor of business. The whole idea is that it will increase sales, so there shouldn't be any need to increase prices in order to make up for the cost. And even beyond that, how does that lead to "everything related to the company"? What does that mean, exactly? Also, how does the phrase "LOWER the cost" come to your mind? Why is the alternative to raising prices not simply leaving them as they are? It doesn't have to be "raise" or "lower" every day, you know.

      "How could you come to a conclusion like that?"

      You're a born-again Christian. Are you saying that's not a part of your views here? If that's the case, how does your faith happen to slip your mind when you're in the process of forming your opinions? If your views are against the words of Jesus, then that's a perfectly acceptable answer, by the way. I simply didn't assume that to be the case, and I gave you an opportunity to explain. Feel free to say how you think that's unfair.

      "Perhaps you're right and that income increase has nothing to do with the increase of products sold today. But, I highly doubt you are right."

      Do you have any source which supports the idea that sports salaries are responsible for higher cost of living? If not, you don't have any basis for doubt. Do you think that a five-bedroom house in Montana costs ten thousand dollars? There aren't any major sports franchises there, so there's nothing to drive up the cost of living. It must be the land of 5-cent hamburgers, right? Seriously, I'd love to see your economics lesson, if you really think you can give one.

      "At least you have the CEO's to whine about making so much and leave pro athletes blameless."

      The CEOs actually work for and make decisions for the companies. That's a direct connection, not tangential like athlete's advertising contracts. The minimum-wage employees of a plastic injection molding company have a more reasonable complaint about executives who make wildly disproportionate salaries than sports stars that the company doesn't pay a penny to.

      You ignored a few things, by the way:
      "People with college degrees don't automatically get jobs in their field. What do you suggest for them?"
      "Also, do you imagine that an increase in education would mean a decrease in minimum-wage jobs? As if college degrees for everyone would mean no more burger-flipping jobs, or what?"
      "There's always going to be a lowest income level, so "less" is not the issue."
      "So, bread costs more because of baseball players? No, probably not. And even that was the case, so what? People are supposed to starve because of it?" (the part you missed in bold)
      "A union enforces 15 breaks a day, but allows its workers to be paid so little that they need public assistance?"
      And:
      "Why should any job take up a full work week and not provide enough to live on? There's no "GIVE" involved there. If the company values the contribution enough to take that much time, then they're obligated to provide a living wage. That's what's rightfully earned by doing full-time work."

      Do you actually have a rationale, here, or are you going to remain stuck on your utterly random rant against overpaid athletes?

      Delete
    4. "It doesn't have to be "raise" or "lower" every day, you know."

      Did Nike sports equipment become cheaper or more expensive when they signed Tiger Woods to that $50 million/year contract? Add up all the endorsement contracts they pay, did those contracts result in a price INCREASE or DECREASE for Nike products? Did they give the minimum wage employees a raise after doing those deals?
      Do you think the secretary or minimum wage worker at the New York Yankees got raises after they signed A-rod to that $250 million contract? How about after signing Cano? Did those lower pay-scale employees get raises too? What happened to ticket prices? Beer prices? Hot dog prices? Can you give an example of any of those prices coming down after a team signs a player to one of those contracts?
      How has your local cable bill done since athletes started making millions?

      "Seriously, I'd love to see your economics lesson, if you really think you can give one."

      Montana? If you take your car into a shop for repairs will they charge you $500 to replace your spark plugs? They do, here in the Bay Area.
      In Montana, just how much does a 5-bedroom house cost? Here in the Bay Area, you could get $1.5 million or more.
      Do you think the McDonald's in Montana will pay the SAME pay to the 'burger flipper' as they do in the Bay Area?
      How about baby sitters, do you think they charge more or less in Montana compared to the Bay Area?
      Also, what is the median household income of Montana compared to California. WHY is that?
      One more thing, you can buy a house in Eddie's city of Detroit Michigan for $20,000. I wonder what the income would be for people who live in that area of Detroit. Would the local auto shop be able to charge "Bay Area" prices to the local residents?

      "You ignored a few things, by the way:"

      Intentional. Strawman arguments don't deserve the attention that you seem to think they do.

      Delete
    5. "Did Nike sports equipment become cheaper or more expensive when they signed Tiger Woods to that $50 million/year contract? Add up all the endorsement contracts they pay, did those contracts result in a price INCREASE or DECREASE for Nike products?"

      Again, why is it one or the other? Next, if they did increase, show that. Following that, explain how that is relevant to the minimum wage in general.

      "Do you think the secretary or minimum wage worker at the New York Yankees got raises after they signed A-rod to that $250 million contract? How about after signing Cano? Did those lower pay-scale employees get raises too? What happened to ticket prices? Beer prices? Hot dog prices? Can you give an example of any of those prices coming down after a team signs a player to one of those contracts?"

      Your concept of "cost of living" seems awfully specific. I don't go to Yankee Stadium, yet I have still seen the cost of living increasing. Why is that?

      "How has your local cable bill done since athletes started making millions?"

      On par with all other rising costs, as far as I've ever seen. Do you have something to show otherwise?

      "If you take your car into a shop for repairs will they charge you $500 to replace your spark plugs? They do, here in the Bay Area."

      So, costs haven't increased in Montana, then? Ever? It seems you're failing to grasp the point, since I'm not claiming that the cost of living is the same everywhere.

      "One more thing, you can buy a house in Eddie's city of Detroit Michigan for $20,000. I wonder what the income would be for people who live in that area of Detroit. Would the local auto shop be able to charge "Bay Area" prices to the local residents?"

      Do you read your own posts? You want to argue that sports salaries are the cause of higher costs of living, but then you point to Detroit? The city has four major sports teams. You're going to have to clarify yourself.

      "Strawman arguments don't deserve the attention that you seem to think they do."

      You didn't explain how anything I said was a "strawman" argument. I'm guessing that you still don't understand the term.

      I notice that you didn't explain how your views conform to the words of Jesus. How odd. And again, even if there was any relevance to the salary of athletes, so what? Are people supposed to suffer as long as you can blame it on athletes? Why would that not be a problem that requires a solution just because you determine fault? If people who work 40 hours need other assistance, then their pay is too low, regardless of the cause, and that needs to be corrected. Apparently, you don't feel comfortable addressing that concept.

      Delete
    6. "You want to argue that sports salaries are the cause of higher costs of living, but then you point to Detroit?"

      I didn't say they were the only cause. I used them as an example of one cause. Can you give me an example of costs lowering because of higher costs to run a business?

      " The city has four major sports teams. You're going to have to clarify yourself."

      Let's see ... do you pay MORE or LESS for dominoe's pizza? Do you pay more or less for Little Ceaser's pizza since they have owned those teams? Do you pay more or less for a Ford? That takes care of 3 of the 4 teams in Detroit. BTW, what is the financial situation in the city of Detroit? Should I blame unions or the minimum wage earner for contributing to that situation?

      "You didn't explain how anything I said was a "strawman" argument."

      Ok, they are unrelated to the discussion. Is that good enough?

      "I notice that you didn't explain how your views conform to the words of Jesus."

      Because that's a strawman argument .... unrelated to the discussion and a diversionary tactic of yours to change the subject to religion when the discussion is monetary pay and costs resulting from them.

      "Are people supposed to suffer as long as you can blame it on athletes?"

      Well, Eddie seems to have a problem with executives making what athletes make as being a cause for the low pay of lower echelon job pay rates. How can the money athletes make NOT be an equivalent to that? Here, let me help you out ... because executives CREATE jobs, athletes DO NOT. What athlete has created jobs because of the pay they received? Yet the whine is about those who CREATE jobs. Hmmm.

      " Apparently, you don't feel comfortable addressing that concept."

      I have no problem addressing that concept. Pro athletes improve their position by working HARDER to achieve their goal. When the 40-hour worker improves their capabilities they will get a raise/better job and not stay at minimum wage. Is that so hard to comprehend?

      Delete
    7. "I used them as an example of one cause. Can you give me an example of costs lowering because of higher costs to run a business?"

      It's just one cause, now?
      You:"Wait, you'll tell me because everything is so expensive. Well, your prized sports people are the blame for that one."
      Now, "the blame" is not actually "the blame". I see. As to "lowering", I'll ask a third time why you insist on that as the alternative to raising prices. I'll also ask why the cost of living goes up everywhere if you want to blame athletes. And if you have other factors in mind, why haven't you mentioned them?

      "Let's see ... do you pay MORE or LESS for dominoe's [sic] pizza?"

      I pay more for milk than I used to. Is that connected to sports? Like I said before, the price rises along with everything else, so there's no connection to salaries of athletes.

      "Do you pay more or less for Little Ceaser's [sic] pizza since they have owned those teams?"

      Less, considering the $5 pizzas.

      "BTW, what is the financial situation in the city of Detroit? Should I blame unions or the minimum wage earner for contributing to that situation?"

      It's more likely regarding the over-reliance on a single industry and banking on SUV sales in the face of rising gas prices. But, regarding your idiotic question, how would it possibly be the fault of the minimum-wage earner? Who created the minimum-wage job? Why do other cities have minimum-wage earners and better economies?

      "Ok, they are unrelated to the discussion. Is that good enough?"

      No, because my comments addressed your quotes, so they're related to what you said. If what you said was unrelated to the discussion, that's your fault. It's also not good enough because that's not what a "strawman" argument means.

      "Because that's a strawman argument .... unrelated to the discussion and a diversionary tactic of yours to change the subject to religion when the discussion is monetary pay and costs resulting from them."

      No, if your views are inconsistent with your stated faith, then that needs to be explained. You can't very well say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and then support the shortchanging of the workers for the sake of executives' earnings.

      "Well, Eddie seems to have a problem with executives making what athletes make as being a cause for the low pay of lower echelon job pay rates. How can the money athletes make NOT be an equivalent to that?"

      Because athletes don't usually work for companies, and they certainly don't establish the number of minimum-wage jobs. Even for employees at Yankee Stadium, if more of them are making minimum wage because of those salaries, that's still the misplaced priorities of the business at hand. Nobody's writing their own 9-figure contracts.

      "Here, let me help you out ... because executives CREATE jobs, athletes DO NOT."

      Then they're responsible for the minimum-wage jobs, and for the welfare of their employees in general.

      "I have no problem addressing that concept. Pro athletes improve their position by working HARDER to achieve their goal. When the 40-hour worker improves their capabilities they will get a raise/better job and not stay at minimum wage."

      Then someone else will get that job. The minimum-wage jobs don't magically vanish because someone moves to a better-paying job. If you didn't realize that, you're a moron. If you did realize that, then you already know that you're not addressing the point. Which is it?

      Delete
    8. "Less, considering the $5 pizzas."

      I guess you don't remember when they offered 2 pizzas for the price of one (pizza-pizza or pan-pan). So, now they give you one pizza and you consider that cheaper than before. Good math you're using there. Thanks for proving my stance.

      "Like I said before, the price rises along with everything else, so there's no connection to salaries of athletes."

      Well then, there isn't a connection between high executive salaries and minimum wage jobs. Is that what you're saying? It seems to me that Eddie is insinuating if the executives didn't make so much money then their most inexperienced employees would be living the 'high life' and rolling in dough (no pun intended while we discuss pizzas).

      "You can't very well say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and then support the shortchanging of the workers for the sake of executives' earnings."

      The workers are not being shortchanged. They get paid a fair wage for the work they do. So how is that out of line with the teachings of Jesus Christ Our Lord? What does Jesus Christ teach on this matter? Perhaps you can enlighten me with your interpretation of His teachings.

      "Then they're responsible for the minimum-wage jobs, and for the welfare of their employees in general."

      That's right. They create jobs for people who would not be working if it wasn't for those jobs. How much would those folk make if that minimum wage job they have wasn't available? Do you think they could support a family on no income?
      I guess that's a silly question to ask someone who seems to think the government should provide all things for everyone employed ... except the executive.
      As for the "welfare of their employees", isn't that one of Eddies complaints? That McDonalds is advising employees on how to utilize government assistance? So, the executives ARE looking out for the welfare of their employees and Eddie is complaining about it. Do you agree with Eddie?

      "The minimum-wage jobs don't magically vanish because someone moves to a better-paying job."

      And what happened to the person whose job is being taken by the improved employee? Did they get fired or move up that same ladder to the next higher job? Maybe that person will continue to move up the ladder and become an executive and possibly request higher pay for his/her quality advancement through the company? Gee what a concept: do good work get good pay.

      Startin with the name-calling already? That didn't take long.

      Delete
    9. "I guess you don't remember when they offered 2 pizzas for the price of one (pizza-pizza or pan-pan). So, now they give you one pizza and you consider that cheaper than before."

      Was the price of those two pizzas $5?

      "Well then, there isn't a connection between high executive salaries and minimum wage jobs."

      How do you figure that? Obviously if corporations put profits ahead of people, there will be more minimum-wage jobs. That's a direct connection, as opposed to your nonsense about athletes.

      "It seems to me that Eddie is insinuating if the executives didn't make so much money then their most inexperienced employees would be living the 'high life' and rolling in dough (no pun intended while we discuss pizzas)."

      It seems to me he was talking about a living wage. It's not clear where your exaggerated interpretation came from.

      "The workers are not being shortchanged. They get paid a fair wage for the work they do."

      How is it "fair" if they need public assistance? How is that a fair trade, putting in a full work week for less than what one can live on?

      "That's right. They create jobs for people who would not be working if it wasn't for those jobs."

      It's not charity. The jobs are created due to the needs of the business, because they're getting a service out of it.

      "Do you think they could support a family on no income?"

      Would you care?

      "I guess that's a silly question to ask someone who seems to think the government should provide all things for everyone employed ... except the executive."

      Strawman argument. Asking for fair pay has nothing to do with a call to "provide all things".

      "That McDonalds is advising employees on how to utilize government assistance? So, the executives ARE looking out for the welfare of their employees and Eddie is complaining about it."

      No, they're helping them get welfare from the public. That's not taking responsibility for their own employees, that's passing the cost onto the taxpayer. Do you support that practice?

      "And what happened to the person whose job is being taken by the improved employee?"

      Irrelevant. That person could have won the lottery, that minimum-wage job still exists. That's the point.

      "Startin [sic] with the name-calling already? That didn't take long."

      Where did I call you a name? You must be admitting that you really thought that minimum-wage jobs just disappear as soon as people move out of them. Otherwise, the conditional phrase I used wouldn't apply to you.

      Delete
    10. "Was the price of those two pizzas $5?"

      Yes, they were where I lived.

      "That person could have won the lottery, that minimum-wage job still exists."

      And, who gets that job? The school kids and inexperienced people, right? So, you are admitting that the supposedly overpaid executive IS creating jobs for people who otherwise would not be working. And, providing and income for those people. When they become more experienced they will get more pay and move up the company ladder or look for a job that does pay more. Minimum wage jobs are for beginners. If someone is trying to sustain a family of 5 working at minimum wage it probably won't happen. Perhaps the people who complain about those jobs should get more experience or education and seek higher employment. Simple enough, even for you to figure that one out.

      "Obviously if corporations put profits ahead of people, there will be more minimum-wage jobs."

      Obviously, also, is that if a person can't live on minimum wage they need to seek a better situation (education/experience) or reduce costs within the family structure. Too bad cable costs so much. Too bad multiple phones cost so much.
      Here's an example: I started being a mechanic in the Army. When I left the local trucking companies did not consider the US Army to be 'experience' for working on trucks (which I did for 2 1/2 years in Army). So I didn't get hired. I found a job at K-mart auto center and made minimum wage as a tire changer. After a while I left and found a job at a used car lot and got $8/hr. I got raises as I improved my abilities. Soon I was making $19/hr doing the same thing as when I started. After a while I got a job at a GM dealership and got paid $12/hr. After a while I was making $28/hr because of the experience I had and certifications I possessed.
      See how that works ... you start at the bottom and work your way up.
      If a burger flipper wants to move up, they need to learn more than flipping burgers. If it costs too much to support your family then lower the costs that are involved in that. I'll bet the minimum wage earner doesn't go to Yankee stadium either, because that probably won't fit in their budget. If they do go, then there is no room for whining about not making enough to live when they waste their money watching a childs game played by adults who make more than the CEO's that Eddie is whining about.

      Delete
    11. "Yes, they were where I lived."

      Not where I lived. So, you can't judge my math on your claimed experience.

      "And, who gets that job? The school kids and inexperienced people, right?"

      Not necessarily. And what's the difference? Those jobs still exist, and they don't pay enough. Why do you imagine that is in any way changed by your opinion of who is worthy of making a living wage?

      "So, you are admitting that the supposedly overpaid executive IS creating jobs for people who otherwise would not be working."

      The business would otherwise not get that service. Again, it's not charity. Theoretically, all companies could rely on skeleton crews of grossly overworked employees turning out shoddy products. It's no great credit to anyone for not doing that.

      "When they become more experienced they will get more pay and move up the company ladder or look for a job that does pay more. Minimum wage jobs are for beginners."

      I'm still waiting for your advice for people who can't find jobs with their college degrees. Should they have no job instead of working in a job for "beginners"? The reality of the situation is that it isn't only beginners who end up in those jobs, no matter how much you want to use that as justification for low pay.

      "Perhaps the people who complain about those jobs should get more experience or education and seek higher employment."

      That wouldn't be any different with a living wage. It's still going to be the lowest pay available, so people would still want to get education and better jobs. And in the meantime, the companies pay their share and the taxpayers don't spend their money on it. Why is that a problem for you?

      "Obviously, also, is that if a person can't live on minimum wage they need to seek a better situation (education/experience) or reduce costs within the family structure."

      No, if minimum wage earners are getting public assistance, then they're not expected to "reduce costs". That's the point of public assistance, to provide enough to live on without luxuries. And again, education doesn't help your case, because people don't automatically get jobs in their fields. On top of that, not everyone can afford to get that education. Naturally you'll say that there are grants and scholarships, but for how many people? If not everyone can get higher education, then some people are guaranteed to end up in those jobs. Even further, if everyone was somehow able to get higher education, some people would still end up in those jobs. It doesn't matter if everyone is a genius and is full of ambition, someone's still going to sweep the floors at the end of the day.

      "See how that works ... you start at the bottom and work your way up."

      So why do you think that you should have needed public assistance when you started out? Were you not worthy of pay you could live on, just because you were inexperienced?

      Like I asked, "How is it "fair" if they need public assistance?" Also, do you support corporations profiting off of taxpayers? And I didn't see you justify your "name-calling" comment. Did you think that minimum-wage jobs disappeared when people moved out of them, or not? If you want to make the criticism, then you have to admit that you really believed that. Otherwise, you were wrong to say that.

      Delete
    12. "Not where I lived. So, you can't judge my math on your claimed experience."

      They didn't have 'pan-pan' or 'pizza-pizza' where you lived? How much did they cost you? You forgot to mention that part. Otherwise I think you're lying. Which you have been proven to be habitual at doing.

      "Did you think that minimum-wage jobs disappeared when people moved out of them, or not?"

      I told you who gets them, did you not read my entire reply? "And, who gets that job? The school kids and inexperienced people, right?"

      " Why do you imagine that is in any way changed by your opinion of who is worthy of making a living wage?"

      When I started working (at a paycheck job) the minimum wage was $2.10 (my first job was delivering newspapers and I made about $20 a week). Do you think I could have supported a family (in 1975) on $2.10/hr? The minimum wage isn't designed to be able to support a family. Apparently you don't understand the purpose of the minimum wage.

      "I'm still waiting for your advice for people who can't find jobs with their college degrees."

      Why would I give advise to people who can't find a job? Maybe they majored in horticulture and are looking for jobs in the automotive field? Gee this isn't rocket science, you know.

      "No, if minimum wage earners are getting public assistance, then they're not expected to "reduce costs"."

      That is a stupid statement. If there was 'public assistance' when I had my $2.10/hr job I may have used it. But, I didn't and STILL was able to make a living. My rent was low, my expenditures were low so I had little problem paying for things I wanted. How much do I-phones cost? How much do play stations cost? When I was young we didn't have those. Are you saying that because kids CAN spend more the government should FORCE companies to pay them enough to afford those items? Quit your whining about minimum wage being 'not enough' because people can live off of minimum wage when they don't spend like millionaires do.

      "That's the point of public assistance, to provide enough to live on without luxuries."

      Do you consider an I-phone a luxury or necessity? How about a Play-station? How about cable? How about car stereo? How about dubs on their car? Are you for real making the argument you're making?

      "And again, education doesn't help your case, because people don't automatically get jobs in their fields."

      Neither did I. The Army trained me to repair Tanks (M-60) and the such ( MOS 63-C at the time). BTW, I finished top in my class. I was sent to a unit that had no tanks and only trucks, so I had to learn to fix them, instead. No training, just doing. The only engine repair training I got in HS was "small engine repair". Do you know what that means? It means little lawn mower engines. Quit your whining about no jobs available.

      "On top of that, not everyone can afford to get that education."

      Neither could I. That's why I joined the Army (one of the reasons). And I got the education I needed to succeed in life and provide a "living wage" for my family from what I learned while in and after I was out.

      "Were you not worthy of pay you could live on, just because you were inexperienced?"

      I've lived off of the pay I got throughout my life. I had no experience for my first job (paper route) yet did it for 1 1/2 years (7 days a week ... every week ... no days off). I had no experience in fixing trucks for the Army, yet did it for 2 1/2 years (5 days a week, 8 hours a day). I had no experience working on cars, yet have been doing it for 35 years. Don't whine to ME about inexperience preventing me from getting a job.

      One last question for you, how much do you think the minimum wage should be?

      Delete
    13. " It's still going to be the lowest pay available, so people would still want to get education and better jobs."

      Wait, didn't you just say college kids don't get jobs in their fields? Why would they want an education if it won't benefit them?

      You are making some incredibly unusual arguments trying to support whatever you're trying to support. Personally, I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
      And, yes, "minimum wage" means "minimum". So, naturally it would be called the "lowest pay available".

      Delete
  2. "They didn't have 'pan-pan' or 'pizza-pizza' where you lived? How much did they cost you? You forgot to mention that part."

    They sure as hell weren't two for five dollars. That doesn't come into question until you provide some sort of evidence that they were at that price where you lived. What you say isn't automatically "fact" which I have to disprove. We've been over this before.

    "I told you who gets them, did you not read my entire reply?"

    Then what the hell were you thinking with the "name-calling" comment? And how did you think that people moving out of low-paying job was a remedy for anything, since you knew that other people would get those same jobs?

    "Do you think I could have supported a family (in 1975) on $2.10/hr? The minimum wage isn't designed to be able to support a family."

    Who said we're only talking about families here?

    "Why would I give advise to people who can't find a job? Maybe they majored in horticulture and are looking for jobs in the automotive field?"

    I specified a job in their field, moron. You even quoted it in the same post. That doesn't allow for your absurd hypothetical.

    "If there was 'public assistance' when I had my $2.10/hr job I may have used it. But, I didn't and STILL was able to make a living. My rent was low, my expenditures were low so I had little problem paying for things I wanted."

    That has nothing to do with the standard in use. The threshold for public assistance exists without considerations as to whether costs can be reduced or not. That's why the limits are placed where they are, because that's the point where it's determined that people need the help even while reducing costs.

    "Are you saying that because kids CAN spend more the government should FORCE companies to pay them enough to afford those items?"

    No, because those items aren't the basis for the concept of a living wage.

    "Do you consider an I-phone a luxury or necessity? How about a Play-station? How about cable? How about car stereo? How about dubs on their car? Are you for real making the argument you're making?"

    I'm not making the argument you're pretending that I'm making. If you can find where I said anything about those items at all, I'd like to see it.

    "I was sent to a unit that had no tanks and only trucks, so I had to learn to fix them, instead. No training, just doing. The only engine repair training I got in HS was "small engine repair". Do you know what that means? It means little lawn mower engines. Quit your whining about no jobs available."

    So you ended up in a minimum-wage job through no fault of your own, yet you don't think that the minimum wage should be raised to account for the cost of living? Obviously someone who ends up in the same position you were in should be able to make a living wage until they find something better.

    "Neither could I."

    And in the same paragraph, you say you got the education you needed. Maybe you should try that one again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I've lived off of the pay I got throughout my life."

      You're having a terrible time with appropriate answers. People aren't able to live on minimum wage today. Whether you had low enough expenditures in 1975 or whenever doesn't change that. So, again, do you think that you were not worthy of pay you could live on, just because you were inexperienced? Remember, you said that the minimum wage should be decreased until those who earn it could learn responsibility. Should you have earned less money after being in the Army because you had been so irresponsible? Also, I find it extremely amusing how hard you had it when working for such low wages, while earlier, minimum wage was for those who still had to actually start working.

      "One last question for you, how much do you think the minimum wage should be?"

      That's a question for economists to debate.

      "Wait, didn't you just say college kids don't get jobs in their fields?"

      No, I said they don't necessarily get jobs in their fields, because you've been acting as if those in minimum-wage jobs just need to get more education and everything will be better for them.

      "You are making some incredibly unusual arguments trying to support whatever you're trying to support."

      What's unclear to you? Putting private industry's financial responsibility on the taxpayer is unacceptable. That's true whether you needed extra assistance in your specific circumstances decades ago. Try concentrating on what's going on with other people and the current economic situation, since that's clearly a much more rational basis for judgment than any individual's personal experience.

      "And, yes, "minimum wage" means "minimum". So, naturally it would be called the "lowest pay available"."

      I'm so glad you were able to follow along on that. Now you can explain why you think those making the lowest pay available wouldn't want to get more education and better jobs even if they were making more money while working for minimum wage.

      Delete
    2. "That doesn't come into question until you provide some sort of evidence that they were at that price where you lived."

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_did_a_large_pizza_cost_in_1980 I realize it isn't Little Ceasers price listed, but I know they were not MORE expensive than dominos.
      Then we have this one: "The company is famous for its advertising catchphrase, "Pizza! Pizza!" which was introduced in 1979. The phrase refers to two pizzas being offered for the comparable price of a single pizza from competitors.": wikipedia.
      AND
      http://thecostofliving.com/index.php?id=90&a=1 This is from when I got out of Army. Minimum wage was $3.10 making today's equivalent: $8.24 (note that minimum wage increased 50% from 75 to 80 and still equals todays amount after adjusting for "cost of living"). Also note that the average wage was double the minimum wage back then ... as it does now. Now quit your whining.
      It is so easy shooting down your points of contention.
      BTW, I lived in Michigan at the time (123 miles from the founding location. And a 1/4 mile from my favorite location).

      "Who said we're only talking about families here?"

      Eddie is including all people. Which includes families. Which you seem to have a concern for with this comment: "Most of those employees are adults.". Notice the word "MOST"? That could be anything from 99% to 51%. Perhaps you forget what you say? So, the answer to that question is: you.

      "So you ended up in a minimum-wage job through no fault of your own, yet you don't think that the minimum wage should be raised to account for the cost of living?"

      It IS raised to account for the cost of living. Google it sometime. How much do you want it raised to this time? You didn't have the guts to answer that the first time I asked, maybe you will this time.

      "Now you can explain why you think those making the lowest pay available wouldn't want to get more education and better jobs even if they were making more money while working for minimum wage."

      com·pla·cen·cy Hope I spelled it right for you. I divided it up, like in the dictionary, so it would be easier for you to read. Do you need me to tell you what that word means, too?

      "And in the same paragraph, you say you got the education you needed. Maybe you should try that one again."

      Why? Do you think college is the ONLY place to get an education? This non-college educated man sure seems to be able to run circles around you and Eddie in these discussions.

      "People aren't able to live on minimum wage today."

      Yes they are. They do it all the time.

      "Should you have earned less money after being in the Army because you had been so irresponsible?"

      How was I "irresponsible"? Do you know something I don't know?

      "That's a question for economists to debate."

      Well, what the hell are you doing in THIS conversation, then, if you can't answer that question? Why don't you stick your nose where it can do some good next time, and leave real conversations to people who actually can carry one on?

      "Putting private industry's financial responsibility on the taxpayer is unacceptable."

      It isn't the "private industry's" job to be financially responsible for their minimum wage earners. Are you saying that the employee can't be responsible for their own finances?
      You seem so worried that people who make minimum wage aren't smart enough to handle their money correctly What makes you think they can handle more money correctly?

      "I specified a job in their field, moron. "

      Looks like I won another discussion with you. You just can't avoid calling people names when they outsmart you in a simple discussion, huh? I must have really destroyed your self confidence (in our last discussion) if these are the best arguments you can give on a simple subject like minimum wage earners.

      Delete
    3. "What you say isn't automatically "fact" which I have to disprove. We've been over this before."

      Oops, looks like it is. Just like before. You really have a problem with facts, don't you? While I just keep providing them. Maybe you will just make shit up, like you did in that last conversation we had, but I don't.

      Delete
    4. "http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_did_a_large_pizza_cost_in_1980"

      That's $13.69 in 2012 dollars, you know.

      "Also note that the average wage was double the minimum wage back then ... as it does now."

      http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf

      "Eddie is including all people. Which includes families."

      My question specified "only". Read for comprehension.

      "Which you seem to have a concern for with this comment: "Most of those employees are adults.". Notice the word "MOST"?"

      Notice that "adult" is not spelled the same as "family"?

      "It IS raised to account for the cost of living."

      See link above.

      "You didn't have the guts to answer that the first time I asked, maybe you will this time."

      It's not a reasonable question. It's too low now. Whatever can be fairly estimated to be a living wage is where it should be. If you'd like to explain why I need to come up with a specific number in order to say that the taxpayers shouldn't be burdened with the cost of private labor, let's hear it.

      "com·pla·cen·cy"

      So your theory is that if people aren't starving, they're not going to try to do better for themselves. Fascinating. That's on a par with blaming the cost of living on athletes.

      "Why? Do you think college is the ONLY place to get an education?"

      So your suggestion is for everyone else to join the Army?

      "This non-college educated man sure seems to be able to run circles around you and Eddie in these discussions."

      Your enormous ego is neither new, nor is it evidence.

      "Yes they are. They do it all the time."

      Then they wouldn't be qualifying for public assistance. Maybe you should call up McDonald's and fix their proposed "budget" for their minimum-wage earners, which didn't account for gas or food. Obviously you think you know something they don't.

      "How was I "irresponsible"?"

      You tell me. You're the one who was making minimum wage, which means you hadn't learned responsibility. Read your initial post again if you still don't get it.

      Delete
    5. "Well, what the hell are you doing in THIS conversation, then, if you can't answer that question?"

      I don't see a proposed minimum wage in your original post, so it obviously wasn't part of your argument. I'm supposed to not address your bigoted nonsense because you might move the goalposts at a later date?

      "Are you saying that the employee can't be responsible for their own finances?"

      No, it's the employer's job to provide a living wage. Since that isn't happening, taxpayers are picking up the slack. Did you even read the link from the actual article?

      "Looks like I won another discussion with you."

      Because you made a moronic comment? You quoted me as saying "in their field", then you talk about two completely separate types of work. If that wasn't your stupidity, you were being dishonest. Does that work out better for you?

      "I must have really destroyed your self confidence (in our last discussion) if these are the best arguments you can give on a simple subject like minimum wage earners."

      Did you post again on that thread? If so, I didn't get any notification on it, and I'm pretty sure the post count is the same as the last time I was there. If you didn't, then it doesn't say anything about my self-confidence when you tuck tail and run off.

      "Oops, looks like it is."

      No, you actually have to support what you say.

      "Maybe you will just make shit up, like you did in that last conversation we had, but I don't."

      You made up a quote and attributed it to me. You also claimed there was such a thing as "income laws", while there's no evidence of such a phrase anywhere. Notice that I have no hesitation in calling you out on your lies, demonstrating my complete confidence.

      Delete
    6. "That's $13.69 in 2012 dollars, you know."

      So? You didn't ask for 2012 cost. You asked for "evidence" of what it cost THEN. Try to follow along.

      "Notice that "adult" is not spelled the same as "family"?"

      Again ... So?

      "It's not a reasonable question. It's too low now."

      Still no guts to answer the question? Would a 15 cent raise make you happy? The minimum wage is half the median income ... just like it was 40 years ago.

      "So your theory is that if people aren't starving, they're not going to try to do better for themselves."

      I never said/insinuated that. But, it is well known that you are good at making shit up.

      "So your suggestion is for everyone else to join the Army?"

      I never suggested that. Again, you're good at making shit up. But, it would sure be more financially wise to do that if they are in the situation you keep whining about.

      "Then they wouldn't be qualifying for public assistance."

      How many actually do that? Maybe 5? Maybe 5 million? Give me some evidence of your stupid whine.

      "You tell me. You're the one who was making minimum wage, which means you hadn't learned responsibility."

      Which part? This part: Minimum wage jobs are for beginner employees, not the lifer seeking retirement at their selected profession. ? Umm, I was a 'beginner employee'. You're truly not very good at this.

      "No, it's the employer's job to provide a living wage."

      And, they DO. They provide half the medium income to employees who want that kind of income.

      " If you didn't, then it doesn't say anything about my self-confidence when you tuck tail and run off."

      I check it often. You want me to continue posting in an attempt to 'get the last word'. Sorry, I don't play your games by your rules. I play logically.

      "No, you actually have to support what you say."

      I did with my links to cost of living/pizza and little ceasers motto. Facts are easy to find and bring. Try it sometime. I win, you lose

      "You made up a quote and attributed it to me."

      Are you STILL whining about something you can't prove? Get over it. When you actually provide PROOF of a lie, insteead of just whining about it, then you may have a point. Otherwise, you have nothing.

      So, if this is all you got, I'll wait for more intelligent posters to appear and ignore much of what you say. It is difficult discussing with a proven habitual liar.

      Delete
    7. I proved my claim of the cost of Little Ceasers pizza, not it's your turn to prove your claim: "They sure as hell weren't two for five dollars.". Prove it or you are a liar. I proved my statement, you need to prove yours. Or ... apologize for making an incorrect statement.

      "Then they wouldn't be qualifying for public assistance."

      I "qualify" for public assistance and I make more than 4 times minimum wage. What's your point? You want minimum wage earners to get $30/hr? I asked you how much they should get but you are too scared to answer. Why don't you step up to the plate and take a stance. Or ... continue being like a whiney liberal seeking everything for nothing.

      "Then they wouldn't be qualifying for public assistance."

      Ummm, they've had a raise since your outdated link. I am right, you are wrong. I win again and you lose ... again.

      Delete
    8. Sorry, meant to copy/paste THIS: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf for my last sentences.

      Delete
    9. "You also claimed there was such a thing as "income laws", while there's no evidence of such a phrase anywhere."

      That's funny. You said I claimed 'such a THING', then you whine there is no "phrase" present. If the best you can do is complain that I brought an actual "income law" to prove there are "income laws" by saying the "phrase" isn't present is precious.

      Delete
  3. "You asked for "evidence" of what it cost THEN. Try to follow along."

    While your point was that the $5 dollar pizza was more expensive. Obviously, those two pizzas cost more than two $5 dollar pizzas. Try to follow along.

    "Again ... So?"

    So, "adult" is not "family", meaning my comment didn't mean what you said it did. I didn't comment on raising families on minimum wage.

    "Still no guts to answer the question?"

    You didn't answer my question as to why anything I've said relies on a specific number. No guts?

    "The minimum wage is half the median income ... just like it was 40 years ago."

    Even if that's true, who says the median income is fair? If salaries are cut across the board, is the minimum wage still livable if it's cut in proportion?

    "I never said/insinuated that."

    Then at what point is this mass complacency supposed to occur? When people can afford the most minor luxuries?

    "I never suggested that."

    So what happens to the people who can't afford an education and can't get into the military? You have no sympathy for them, but a certain number of those people will exist no matter what. Do you see the problem with that?

    "How many actually do that? Maybe 5? Maybe 5 million? Give me some evidence of your stupid whine."

    Read the article. Eddie linked to it, so all you have to do is click on it.

    "Umm, I was a 'beginner employee'. You're truly not very good at this."

    You: "IMHO, the minimum wage should be decreased until those who earn it learn some responsibility." You were making minimum wage, so you needed to learn some responsibility. Why is that, again?

    "You want me to continue posting in an attempt to 'get the last word'"

    No, I want you to justify your claims. And your response didn't address "self-confidence", in case you didn't notice. You kept going up until there were 733 posts, then suddenly it wasn't logical to continue? Hilarious.

    "I did with my links to cost of living/pizza and little ceasers [sic] motto."

    That's not "automatically". And you asked if I paid more or less for their pizza, remember? Obviously, people pay less now, due to adjustment for inflation. So, your "fact" (based off of your extrapolation) disproved your own point.

    "Are you STILL whining about something you can't prove?"

    I don't have to prove a negative. By your logic, I could attribute pro-Nazi quotes to you, and you couldn't say a word about it. Would that be fair to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I proved my claim of the cost of Little Ceasers [sic] pizza, not it's your turn to prove your claim: "They sure as hell weren't two for five dollars.""

      You don't think the price would have gone up over the course of ten or so years? I never saw those prices. Are you going to whine about something you can't prove?

      "Or ... apologize for making an incorrect statement."

      So, I'm supposed to apologize for my recollection of a different period of time than what you're talking about, but you don't apologize for claiming that I "said" that I get my morals from the Code of Hammurabi? No, you'll just have to get over it.

      "I "qualify" for public assistance and I make more than 4 times minimum wage."

      What public assistance are you talking about?

      "Or ... continue being like a whiney liberal seeking everything for nothing."

      If minimum-wage work is "nothing", then how do you feel about having been paid for "nothing"?

      "Ummm, they've had a raise since your outdated link."

      The minimum wage increased? And if the minimum wage was too low in 2012, and it hasn't increase since then, what would be "outdated"? As if the cost of living went down dramatically? Even with all the high-paid athletes? Impossible!

      By the way, you posted the same quote three times. That doesn't really speak well for your mental acuity.

      "You said I claimed 'such a THING', then you whine there is no "phrase" present."

      Yes, because there's no such thing. Which is demonstrated by the fact that the phrase doesn't appear in a web search. So, you can't even claim that you brought an "income law", because there's no evidence that there's any such thing to begin with. Does that require further clarification?

      "If the best you can do is complain that I brought an actual "income law" to prove there are "income laws" by saying the "phrase" isn't present is precious [sic]."

      What follows the "if" clause in that comment? Your brain cut out on you in mid-sentence, apparently.

      Delete
    2. " Obviously, those two pizzas cost more than two $5 dollar pizzas. Try to follow along."

      Ok, let me follow your math: 2 pizzas that cost $5 for both is more than 2 pizzas at $5 each. Wow, that must be the 'new math' they teach in schools now days.

      "Even if that's true, who says the median income is fair?"

      It IS true, I brought a link that shows that. And,"fair"? Moving the goalposts already?

      " Do you see the problem with that?"

      There will always be poor people. Yes, there is a problem with that, but there is nothing that can prevent it. Have you ever seen a situation where there were NO poor in ANY country at ANY time?

      "No, I want you to justify your claims."

      I did that. Now, if you want to continue whining about that article, put your posts on that article.

      "That's not "automatically"."

      Waaaa. Are you crying?

      "I never saw those prices."

      I did and I proved it. More crying?

      "What public assistance are you talking about?"

      What public assistance are YOU talking about?

      " Does that require further clarification?"

      Not during THIS articles conversation. You have a problem with the actual law that I brought, take it back to that article.

      Delete
    3. "Then at what point is this mass complacency supposed to occur?"

      Is that an admission that you lied? Looks like it to me. Good one.

      "So, "adult" is not "family", meaning my comment didn't mean what you said it did."

      Every adult is part of a family. Even if it's just a family of one.

      Delete
    4. "Ok, let me follow your math: 2 pizzas that cost $5 for both is more than 2 pizzas at $5 each."

      Adjusted for inflation, yes. Ten dollars is less than $13.69.

      "And,"fair"? Moving the goalposts already?"

      How is that "moving the goalposts"? If there's nothing to say that the median income is fair, then using that as a yardstick doesn't make any sense. Is the word "fair" used in the context of pay confusing you? Do you somehow believe the entire conversation isn't about what constitutes fair pay?

      "Have you ever seen a situation where there were NO poor in ANY country at ANY time?"

      No, but thanks for supporting my point. Since there will always be poor people, you can't act as if people who are poor deserve whatever they get.

      "Now, if you want to continue whining about that article, put your posts on that article."

      I posted on that article. Did you reply?

      "Waaaa. Are you crying?"

      No, I'm pointing out that you said that what you say is automatically true.

      "I did and I proved it. More crying?"

      No, I'm disputing your absurd "lying" argument. Maybe you should try to move past the third-grade theatrics and try to make a reasoned response instead.

      "What public assistance are YOU talking about?"

      It mentions it in the link. Why don't you read it?

      "You have a problem with the actual law that I brought, take it back to that article."

      Go ahead and post your response there.

      "Is that an admission that you lied?"

      What would that "lie" be? I asked you to clarify your views. At what point are people supposed to fall victim to "complacency"?

      "Every adult is part of a family. Even if it's just a family of one."

      That doesn't match the dictionary definition, sorry. It also doesn't match up with your own words: "Do you think I could have supported a family (in 1975) on $2.10/hr? The minimum wage isn't designed to be able to support a family." If the minimum wage isn't designed to be able to support a "family of one", then you're saying that it's not designed to support anyone. So, you can't very well say that anyone should consider minimum wage to be sufficient support.

      Feel free to stick to that story, since it destroys your argument entirely.

      I notice, also, that you didn't explain why you needed to learn responsibility or why you deserved to get even less money than you did on minimum wage. It must have slipped your mind.

      Delete
    5. "Adjusted for inflation, yes. Ten dollars is less than $13.69."

      You were asking about 'then' not now. And you didn't mention "adjusted for inflation" at any point when you said it didn't cost that much then. Of course you've never brought any evidence of how much Little Ceasers pizza did cost you at that time. I brought my evidence, but you did not. Hmm, that wasn't unexpected. lol

      " Is the word "fair" used in the context of pay confusing you?"

      Apparently so. Your idea of "fair" is probably different than mine. So let's stick to what's being discussed and not move the goalposts.

      "It mentions it in the link. Why don't you read it?"

      I did. Apparently, you did not or you wouldn't have asked me that question.

      "What would that "lie" be?"

      That I said a 'mass complacency (is) supposed to occur'.

      " It also doesn't match up with your own words: "Do you think I could have supported a family (in 1975) on $2.10/hr?"

      I wasn't an adult in 1975. I was still living at home and going to HS. I was a kid starting out in the workforce with no experience and getting beginner wages. As I said it should be.

      "Feel free to stick to that story, since it destroys your argument entirely."

      Ok, I will.

      "It must have slipped your mind."

      No, it didn't slip my mind. I ignore stupid requests.

      Delete
    6. "I posted on that article. Did you reply?"

      Sorry, still 733 posts. You haven't posted any more lies.

      " Maybe you should try to move past the third-grade theatrics and try to make a reasoned response instead."

      3rd grade is all you seem to understand. So, I'll stick with it. Actually, you can't even follow 3rd grade level discussions as evidenced by this statement: "Adjusted for inflation, yes. Ten dollars is less than $13.69.". I guess you didn't get past 3rd grade math. Thank God for liberal teachers who passed you anyway.

      Delete
    7. "You were asking about 'then' not now."

      No, you were asking about a drop in their prices. Go back and read it again.

      "And you didn't mention "adjusted for inflation" at any point when you said it didn't cost that much then."

      I didn't have to, if you're not a moron. If a company charged the same price today for a product as they did in 1975, then that would be cheaper for the consumer today. Or maybe you think that any new car over five thousand dollars is expensive.

      "Of course you've never brought any evidence of how much Little Ceasers [sic] pizza did cost you at that time."

      I never said anything about "at that time". You hadn't even specified what year you were referring to at that point.

      "Your idea of "fair" is probably different than mine."

      So? It's still integral to whether wages are too low or not, and that's the topic.

      "I did."

      Then you didn't need to ask for specifics about public assistance.

      "That I said a 'mass complacency (is) supposed to occur'."

      You're lying. You responded to that very quote with this: "Is that an admission that you lied?" You weren't asking if that statement was an admission that the same statement was a lie. It couldn't be a lie and an admission at the same time, because the admission would have to follow. That's especially obvious, since you used the past tense. Try again, truthfully this time.

      "I wasn't an adult in 1975."

      Try to focus on the part of the quote that you left out. If you think that "family" is the same as "adult", then you said that the minimum wage isn't designed for adults. So, since you don't seem to think that everyone can get college or military education, it's very odd that you think that a group of people should earn less than the minimum wage (insufficient for adults even without that reduction, according to you) due to their lack of responsibility. And it's strange that you heaped so much praise on those who create jobs for people who don't belong in those jobs. On top of that, if it's adjusted to the cost of living, as you claimed, then why the hell would it not be appropriate for adults? Even better, here's you: "Quit your whining about minimum wage being 'not enough' because people can live off of minimum wage when they don't spend like millionaires do." Which is it, enough to live on, or not designed to support single adults?

      And besides all of that, you said you were making minimum wage after you left the Army. You were an adult at that point. An irresponsible one, according to you, but an adult nonetheless.

      Delete
    8. "I was still living at home and going to HS."

      You were patting yourself on the back for managing to live on that wage while you were living with your parents? Hilarious! Let's review:
      "I've lived off of the pay I got throughout my life. I had no experience for my first job (paper route) yet did it for 1 1/2 years (7 days a week ... every week ... no days off)."
      You lived off of that money, while under mom and dad's roof? What a financial wizard you must be!
      "If there was 'public assistance' when I had my $2.10/hr job I may have used it. But, I didn't and STILL was able to make a living. My rent was low, my expenditures were low so I had little problem paying for things I wanted."
      Apparently, you were chastising people for not being able to live on minimum wage because your parents charged you low rent and you were still able to "make a living". How dare people complain about low pay when all they have to do is just move back in with mommy and daddy, right? And how in the hell did you think you "may" have used public assistance when you were in high school and living with your parents? On what possible basis would you have deserved any aid? Seriously, what could you have been thinking when you posted that?

      Even further, who the hell charges their kids rent while they're still in high school? What's the alternative, a legal minor renting their own apartment? You were supposed to work enough to be able to afford your own place, cutting into your study time? And were they going to kick you out onto the street if you were late with your payment, or what? That is simply...what's the word? Oh, right. Precious.

      "Ok, I will."

      Good, then you'll retract all of your condemnations of people who need more support than minimum wage can provide.

      "No, it didn't slip my mind. I ignore stupid requests."

      So, you want to say that I have "no guts" if I don't give you an irrelevant and arbitrary determination of what the minimum wage should be, but it's "stupid" to ask you to reconcile your clear self-contradiction? What a convenient standard for you.

      Anything else? You've broken your own personal record time for painting yourself into a corner, but I invite you to flail about impotently for as long as you like.

      Delete
    9. "Sorry, still 733 posts. You haven't posted any more lies."

      I never posted any lies to begin with. So, you haven't responded, then. That's what I thought.

      "Actually, you can't even follow 3rd grade level discussions as evidenced by this statement: "Adjusted for inflation, yes. Ten dollars is less than $13.69.". I guess you didn't get past 3rd grade math."

      Are you saying that 10 is more than 13.69? You're not making your argument clear, probably because you don't have a legitimate one.

      Try adding some substance to your posts. Your hollow insults and accusations only damage your own appearance further.

      Delete
    10. "If a company charged the same price today for a product as they did in 1975, then that would be cheaper for the consumer today."

      The company didn't exist in 75. But, if you had been paying attention you would know that.

      "I never said anything about "at that time"."

      Yes you did, when you said these statements: "Was the price of those two pizzas $5?" and "Not where I lived."They sure as hell weren't two for five dollars.". What the hell do you think we were talking about? Can you even follow along in a simple conversation?

      "So? It's still integral to whether wages are too low or not, and that's the topic."

      That's right, which makes "fair" become a tangent statement.

      " So, since you don't seem to think that everyone can get college or military educati ... blah blah blah"

      I don't think "should".

      " You were an adult at that point. An irresponsible one, according to you, but an adult nonetheless."

      That's right. But, I didn't keep making minimum wage very long after I got EXPERIENCE at my job. The difference being that I ADVANCED and didn't become COMPLACENT. Please try to do better at following what is being discussed.

      "You lived off of that money, while under mom and dad's roof?"

      Yeah. What's your point? I'm still living. That's why I'm able to post this statement.

      "What a financial wizard you must be!"

      Well, I did advise Eddie to buy Tesla stock when it was at $17. He chose to follow Fisker Karma. You do the math.

      "Are you saying that 10 is more than 13.69? You're not making your argument clear, probably because you don't have a legitimate one."

      No, I'm saying $5 is less than $10. Which was the price of 2 pizzas. Which is what we were talking about.

      " Your hollow insults and accusations only damage your own appearance further."

      What insult?

      Delete
    11. "The company didn't exist in 75."

      I wasn't referring to that company. I said "a company", and the car example should have helped you grasp that distinction.

      "What the hell do you think we were talking about?"

      What the hell do you think you are talking about? Here's your quote: "Of course you've never brought any evidence of how much Little Ceasers [sic] pizza did cost you at that time." I didn't know what "time" you were even referring to at that point, so I wasn't claiming that any pizza had cost me anything "at that time". You're pretending that I was talking about 1980 before you had even cited that year. Sorry, that's not going to work out for you.

      "That's right, which makes "fair" become a tangent statement."

      That didn't even come close to making any sense. You agreed that "fair" is integral to the topic, so it's not a "tangent".

      "I don't think "should"."

      Again, you: "IMHO, the minimum wage should be decreased until those who earn it learn some responsibility." What, exactly, are you trying to deny? Incidentally, I didn't type "blah blah blah", so it's inappropriate to leave that inside the quotation marks.

      "That's right."

      So you were irresponsible? I thought you were denying that.

      "But, I didn't keep making minimum wage very long after I got EXPERIENCE at my job."

      Which is only relevant to your own circumstances. There's no cosmic force of justice that makes that happen. Employers who put profit ahead of people can delay and deny pay increases. So where does that leave your argument?

      "The difference being that I ADVANCED and didn't become COMPLACENT."

      As opposed to who? Do you have any basis for suggesting you're some rare exception to the rule? Besides, you would seem to believe that if you earned more money, you would have become complacent. Is your work ethic really that weak? And if more money wouldn't have made you complacent, what makes you think it would for others? Surely you don't think you're better than everyone else.

      "I'm still living. That's why I'm able to post this statement."

      So without that paper route money, you wouldn't have survived? Your parents must have been psychotic. Did you have to pay for your food, too?

      "No, I'm saying $5 is less than $10."

      Not when comparing prices thirty-two years apart. Along the lines of what I said earlier, you think that a new $15,000 Kia Rio today has more value than a new $5,000 Mustang in 1975? Fifteen is more than five, so you must.

      "What insult?"

      I quoted it in my post: "Actually, you can't even follow 3rd grade level discussions as evidenced by this statement: "Adjusted for inflation, yes. Ten dollars is less than $13.69.". I guess you didn't get past 3rd grade math."

      Thanks for not denying that your criticism of adults earning the minimum wage is based off the time you spent living with your parents as a teenager. Could they even legally kick you out of the house back then? It would be considered abandonment, now. If it wasn't legal, then they couldn't enforce demands for rent at all. Maybe you just never figured that out, or you were just intimidated into their extortion. Either way, it's not something a smart person would boast about.

      Delete
    12. "Incidentally, I didn't type "blah blah blah", so it's inappropriate to leave that inside the quotation marks. blah blah blah"

      So what?

      "You're pretending that I was talking about 1980 before you had even cited that year. Sorry, that's not going to work out for you."

      You replied to comments that were referring to that time frame, so, yes it will work out for me just fine. Do you want the quote you replied to and your answer? Here it is:
      I asked you: "Do you pay more or less for Little Ceaser's pizza since they have owned those teams?"
      You answered: "Less, considering the $5 pizzas."
      The OBVIOUS time is "since they owned". Which was in 1982. So you DO know the time frame being discussed and you're lying about it when you say you did NOT know.
      You lost another argument so you've resorted to lying about what you said. Don't worry, I have experienced this habit of yours often, so I'm used to it.

      "Your parents must have been psychotic. "

      Now you're calling people you've never met names? You must really be floundering if that is the best you can do.

      "Not when comparing prices thirty-two years apart."

      Too bad we were talking about pizza prices of the same time period. Is this how you 'win' an argument? By lying about what is being discussed so you can avoid looking like you have no clue?

      "Along the lines of what I said earlier, you think that a new $15,000 Kia Rio today has more value than a new $5,000 Mustang in 1975?"

      Yes, a Kia Rio is has more value than a new Mustang in 75. $15K IS more than $5K. Besides, they didn't MAKE a Mustang in 1975. Do you know that the 75 Mustang II was design-based from the Ford Pinto? So, I don't think your 1975 Mustang II even cost $5K when new. But, in order for you to prove your statement, I would expect you to have already done the research and you know exactly how they cost new, right? RIGHT?

      However, since you never actually do any research and you just "blah blah blah" things out, then there is always the expectation that you will lie when you say something. As proved with your "new $5,000 Mustang in 1975" statement. Because even the most highly priced Mustang II (in 1975) only cost $4100. BTW, that equals $16K "adjusted for inflation". So, both cars are equal to each other by YOUR math.

      "I quoted it in my post:"

      Are you crying again? Gee, I'm sorry to keep making you cry.

      Delete
    13. "So what?"

      I was just letting you know. I certainly didn't assume that you cared about propriety.

      "The OBVIOUS time is "since they owned". Which was in 1982. So you DO know the time frame being discussed and you're lying about it when you say you did NOT know."

      No, you never specified "1982" earlier, so you can't possibly claim that I had that year in mind. Was there really no more "Pizza Pizza" deal after 1982? Either way, I never saw a $5 price on that, even if it really matched your supposed evidence from wikianswers.

      "You lost another argument so you've resorted to lying about what you said."

      No, you didn't cite 1980, which is what I said. By the way, why would you assume I'm old enough to have been buying pizza in 1980?

      "Now you're calling people you've never met names?"

      I've never met Charles Manson, but I have no problem calling him psychotic. It's not normal, to put it kindly, for parents to hinge their own children's survival on monetary gain. Typically, rent would be charged after high school, when legal adulthood has been reached and there's less or no time being spent on education. Maybe you think that's just a "liberal" thing.

      "Too bad we were talking about pizza prices of the same time period."

      No, moron, we were not. You asked as to whether prices had increased or decreased since the sports team ownership. That question inescapably involves two different time periods.

      "Yes, a Kia Rio is has more value than a new Mustang in 75. $15K IS more than $5K."

      No, a higher dollar amount does not in itself mean more value when you're talking about two different time periods. Someone who earns $30,000 today (as an example) would spend half of their yearly salary on the Kia Rio. The comparative salary in 1975 would be $7,500 a year. The Mustang would take up two-thirds of that money.

      In case you failed third-grade math, two-thirds is greater than one half.

      "But, in order for you to prove your statement, I would expect you to have already done the research and you know exactly how they cost new, right? RIGHT?"

      No, because the specifics of the example don't affect the point. Would you like to demonstrate otherwise? If you really want to whine over such trivial details, feel free to insert whatever car you think cost $5,000 at the time. Then that car will have more value than today's Kia Rio, and my point will remain unscathed.

      "Because even the most highly priced Mustang II (in 1975) only cost $4100. BTW, that equals $16K "adjusted for inflation". So, both cars are equal to each other by YOUR math."

      Except 16K is more than 15K. And even if they were "equal", my point is still made, because inflation negates the ten thousand dollar difference. The same way that inflation makes five dollars in 1980 worth more than ten dollars today. By the way, your $4,100 is base price. Additional features would drive the price up. Since it was simply an example to demonstrate the point, I really didn't give a good God damn about specific base prices. And you won't be able to ever explain why I should.

      "Are you crying again?"

      No, I answered your question. If you don't like it, then it's your fault for asking. On the other hand, are you crying over the base price of a 1975 Mustang II? Because I never asked you for that.

      Notice that you aren't even trying to reconcile your contradictions on the minimum wage at this point, you're obsessed with minor details which don't affect the validity of my arguments in the slightest. Whatever makes you feel better about losing, I suppose.

      Delete
    14. "By the way, your $4,100 is base price."

      No, that's the version of the Mustang II that had all the 'bells/whistles' and most powerful engine Ford offered in that car. The "base model" price was much lower.
      BTW, you failed to address the FACT that there were NO Mustangs sold in 1975 by Ford. They were called Mustang II. Which is DIFFERENT than Mustang. So, you are wrong with your comparison since the vehicle you used in your comparison didn't even exist. Making you a liar.
      The Kia Rio, does vary in price that would absolutely make the Mustang II and Kia Rio equal in "value" using the 'adjusted for inflation' method you like to use.

      "And you won't be able to ever explain why I should."

      You SHOULD be able to explain how a non-existant car can be sold for $5000. But, you won't, will you?

      "Was there really no more "Pizza Pizza" deal after 1982?"

      Where was it said that deal ended in '82? Are you even paying semi-close attention to what is being discussed?

      "The comparative salary in 1975 would be $7,500 a year. The Mustang would take up two-thirds of that money."

      That is a lie. There was no "Mustang" offered in 1975. I've explained that several times, yet you continue to refer to it as if it was a real car. The Mustang only existed in your mind, in 1975. Kind of like your insistence that you never paid $5 for 2 Little Ceasers pizzas, reality is different than your memory.

      "Either way, I never saw a $5 price on that, even if it really matched your supposed evidence from wikianswers."

      Is that how you make an 'honest argument' by lying? The part of my 'evidence that shows the price of Little Ceasers pizza' in that time frame was from wikipedia.
      And ... you still have not provided the evidence for you claim that "They sure as hell weren't two for five dollars.". I brought the evidence that you asked for, now bring yours. Unless you aren't capable of proving what you say.

      "By the way, why would you assume I'm old enough to have been buying pizza in 1980?"

      Because you've admitted your age in previous articles.

      Delete
    15. "No, that's the version of the Mustang II that had all the 'bells/whistles' and most powerful engine Ford offered in that car. The "base model" price was much lower."

      Apparently not: http://www.musclecarfacts.com/ford-mustang/347-1975-mustang . Note: "As the aforementioned only model with a base price over $4,000, the Mach I sold for $4,188 and had a production run of 21,062."

      "BTW, you failed to address the FACT that there were NO Mustangs sold in 1975 by Ford. They were called Mustang II. Which is DIFFERENT than Mustang."

      No, it's still a Mustang. Note the title on the page I linked to. Also read the references to "Mustang" or "Mustangs" throughout, without a "II" attached. It's not a "FACT" that it has to be called "Mustang II", so sorry.

      "The Kia Rio, does vary in price that would absolutely make the Mustang II and Kia Rio equal in "value" using the 'adjusted for inflation' method you like to use."

      No, I stated the price. That was the purpose, moron. I listed the prices paid for the cars, not other prices that could have been charged. The example needs set numbers in order to have two percentages for comparison, obviously. By the way, inflation is a very well-known concept. If you don't recognize its legitimacy, you're not qualified to be discussing wages.

      "You SHOULD be able to explain how a non-existant [sic] car can be sold for $5000."

      You should be able to explain how a non-existent type of law can be used to gauge differences between how businesses are treated. On the other hand, you harping on an irrelevant modifier doesn't make the 1975 Mustang "non-existent".

      "Where was it said that deal ended in '82?"

      If owning a sports team drove up their prices, as was your argument, then why would that deal continue?

      "That is a lie."

      Try to focus on the point, moron. It's an example for demonstrative purposes, not an essay on the history of the Mustang. You're obsessed with irrelevant details.

      "Kind of like your insistence that you never paid $5 for 2 Little Ceasers [sic] pizzas, reality is different than your memory."

      I know I never paid $5 for 2 Little Caesers pizzas. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

      "Is that how you make an 'honest argument' by lying? The part of my 'evidence that shows the price of Little Ceasers pizza' in that time frame was from wikipedia."

      Wrong, moron. Your evidence of the $5 price was from wikianswers. Scroll up and see for yourself. You then used wikipedia to extrapolate the price of the Pizza Pizza deal. That's why I said "if it really matched".

      "And ... you still have not provided the evidence for you claim that "They sure as hell weren't two for five dollars.

      You didn't ask for evidence, you asked for my recollection. Again, scroll up and see. Obviously, by the time I had any interest in or ability to buy pizza, that price had gone up. Remember, your own quote said that it was supposed to match the competitor's price for one pizza. So, whenever the competitor's pizza price went up, then Little Caesar's could (and probably would) follow suit.

      "Because you've admitted your age in previous articles."

      So you thought I was going out for pizza when I was seven years old? How strange.

      You're even losing at your deflecting arguments. You might as well go back to the actual topic, because you're not doing any better on your tangents.

      Delete
    16. "Apparently not: "

      Thanks. That proves what I said ... that the $4100 version was the one with all the 'bells/whistles'. Thanks for proving my point. BASE model cost $3500 according to YOUR link. YOU said the "base" price was $4100, it was not. Making that a lie. Even the most expensive Mustang II wasn't $5000. Making THAT a lie, also.
      And Mustang II is different than Mustang. Making THAT a lie also. It was designed after the Pinto for God's sake, how in the world can you call it a Mustang?

      "If owning a sports team drove up their prices, as was your argument, then why would that deal continue?"

      I didn't say "owning" drove the prices up, I said the high salaries that athletes get and endorsement contracts were factors in higher prices. So, you are taking what I said out of context and lying about what I said.

      "I know I never paid $5 for 2 Little Caesers pizzas. Do you have evidence to the contrary?"

      Yes, and I provided it. Do you want me to back (in this article) and repost my links that prove the price of those 2 pizzas? Of course you do, that's your way of wasting time.

      "Wrong, moron. Your evidence of the $5 price was from wikianswers. "

      The wikianswers link had the price of DOMINOS pizza on it, not Little Ceasers. The wikipedia link said that Little Ceasers price was "comparable" to the competition. One is not exclusive of the other. Those 2 pizzas could have cost $5.25 and still be "comparable", yet NOT $5. The point is you have NOT brought evidence that the price was never $5 for 2 pizzas from Little Ceasers.

      "Remember, your own quote said that it was supposed to match the competitor's price for one pizza. "

      Yet another lie brought by you. I said "comparable".

      "So you thought I was going out for pizza when I was seven years old?"

      Yes, every other normal child in America was doing it by that age. Were you NOT normal? Silly question to ask YOU, huh? The one that lies every chance he gets.

      "You might as well go back to the actual topic, blah blah blah "

      If all you're going to do is lie when you post, then I will go back to discussing how minimum wage is already at a good limit and does not need to be raised, yet. Because after you took this off in some wierd direction, and then lied about everything you said, it "makes no sense" to continue discussing with a liar.



      Delete
    17. "That proves what I said ... that the $4100 version was the one with all the 'bells/whistles'."

      And that $4,100 is the base price. Which is exactly what I said: "By the way, your $4,100 is base price. Additional features would drive the price up." I said "additional features", not "another model".

      "BASE model cost $3500 according to YOUR link. YOU said the "base" price was $4100, it was not. Making that a lie."

      I never said base model. Base price exists for all models. You yourself said the most expensive was $4100, so you already accepted that number. You can't backtrack now and insist that you were restricting yourself to the base model. For your reference: "Because even the most highly priced Mustang II (in 1975) only cost $4100."

      "Even the most expensive Mustang II wasn't $5000. Making THAT a lie, also."

      Not at base price. So what? I have no need to claim that the car wasn't purchased with extra features. Those features are part of what would give the car more value, which was the point at hand. As you like to say, this isn't rocket science.

      "And Mustang II is different than Mustang. Making THAT a lie also. It was designed after the Pinto for God's sake, how in the world can you call it a Mustang?"

      You seem to be devolving into the realm of the connoisseur here. The source I found referred to it as a Mustang. If you want to dispute that, take it up with them. In the meantime, I indisputably used the term in good faith.

      "I didn't say "owning" drove the prices up, I said the high salaries that athletes get and endorsement contracts were factors in higher prices. So, you are taking what I said out of context and lying about what I said."

      Why don't the salaries affect them once they own the sports team? You asked about prices before and after team ownership. At what point in time did you intend "after" to apply? Feel free to provide any information that you previously left out.

      Delete
    18. "Yes, and I provided it."

      I don't see anything showing that I've ever purchased a pizza. Try again.

      "The wikianswers link had the price of DOMINOS pizza on it, not Little Ceasers [sic]."

      Exactly, moron. That's the price that you matched your wikipedia link up to.

      "Those 2 pizzas could have cost $5.25 and still be "comparable", yet NOT $5."

      Then why did you say that you paid five dollars, if the price might have been higher? Really, if you're going to clutch at your pearls over saying "Mustang" instead of "Mustang II", then you have to say that you paid something close to five dollars instead of "I realize it isn't Little Ceasers price listed, but I know they were not MORE expensive than dominos." Because $5.25 is MORE expensive than $5, right?

      "The point is you have NOT brought evidence that the price was never $5 for 2 pizzas from Little Ceasers [sic]."

      You didn't ask for evidence, you asked for my recollection. Apparently you skipped over that fact while reading.

      "Yet another lie brought by you. I said "comparable"."

      I didn't put "match" in quotes. If you're promising a comparable price, then you're basing it off of the competitor's price. And when you say that it wasn't MORE expensive than Domino's, that suggests it's the same price, because the deal would seem good enough without lowering the price further. If your phrasing was misleading, correct yourself.

      "Yes, every other normal child in America was doing it by that age."

      Buying pizza? I doubt it. Maybe you had to buy pizza to survive, but my meals were free of charge.

      "If all you're going to do is lie when you post, then I will go back to discussing how minimum wage is already at a good limit and does not need to be raised, yet."

      But you believe that it's not designed for individual adults, so it's clearly not at a "good limit". As for "lies", good luck proving any.

      "Because after you took this off in some wierd [sic] direction, and then lied about everything you said, it "makes no sense" to continue discussing with a liar."

      What "weird direction" would that be? Nobody's forcing you to fixate on irrelevant details except yourself. I've invited you to explain how you think the minimum wage should be lowered to teach people responsibility, while you were making minimum wage after the Army. I'd also love for you to explain how you think the minimum wage isn't fit for any adult ("family of one"), yet at the same time it's fine if people don't spend like millionaires. The current direction is your doing, not mine. And as for not continuing discussing with a "liar", I'm sure you'll say the same thing 700 posts from now, just like the last thread. It sort of proves that you know you're throwing the term around without any basis, just so you're aware.

      But thanks for admitting that you're off-topic. Correct yourself at your leisure.

      Delete
    19. " You yourself said the most expensive was $4100, so you already accepted that number."

      You said the Mustang cost $5K. It never cost that much. AND, it was not the Mustang. Was there a Mustang III offered? No? They went to "Mustang" after the "Mustang II", so if you are correct in your assertion that the Mustang II is a Mustang then it was shot down when they didn't come out with a Mustang III. They called subsequent models the "Mustang". So your lie is still intact. No Mustang cost $5K in ANY configuration since there was NO Mustangs sold in 1975 by Ford.

      "Not at base price. So what?"

      Which model (of the Mustang) cost $5K in 1975?

      "The source I found referred to it as a Mustang"

      No, they referred to it as Mustang II. So your "good faith" is a lie. Nothing new, coming from you.

      "Why don't the salaries affect them once they own the sports team?"

      Because they hadn't signed players to huge contracts yet. Read about Mike Ilitch.


      So, apparently, you have nothing to say about minimum wage and only are trying to wiggle yourself out of the lie that "Mustang" was offered in 1975. Which it wasn't. There was NO such thing as a Mustang in 1975, only the Mustang II in different configurations. After the Mustang II they came out with a car called a "Mustang". How could they be the same if they called them different names before AND after the Mustang II??

      Too bad you have nothing left to offer in this discussion on minimum wage other than crying about being a liar.

      Still haven't seen any proof of how much you paid for Little Cearsers pizzas. Which you claim were not $5 for 2 pizzas. Are you, at least, going to defend that statement or leave it a lie?? I suspect the later, which is typical of your style of 'honest discussion'. You're welcome to take this discussion back 'on topic' if you ever feel like it. Otherwise, good try at trying to get away with more lies.

      Delete
    20. "You said the Mustang cost $5K."

      No, it was a single car used for the example, not a comment on every Mustang.

      "They went to "Mustang" after the "Mustang II", so if you are correct in your assertion that the Mustang II is a Mustang then it was shot down when they didn't come out with a Mustang III."

      Is that supposed to make sense? Why would they have to come out with a Mustang III? Ford itself lists the Mustang II on its history of Mustangs. Do you want to tell them that they're wrong?

      "Which model (of the Mustang) cost $5K in 1975?"

      What part of "not at base price" is confusing you?

      "No, they referred to it as Mustang II."

      They also referred to is as a Mustang. It's right at the top of the page, for the most obvious example.

      "Because they hadn't signed players to huge contracts yet."

      Then why did you ask about that company, if the before and after aspects weren't relevant to your argument?

      "So, apparently, you have nothing to say about minimum wage and only are trying to wiggle yourself out of the lie that "Mustang" was offered in 1975."

      Apparently, you can't read: "I've invited you to explain how you think the minimum wage should be lowered to teach people responsibility, while you were making minimum wage after the Army. I'd also love for you to explain how you think the minimum wage isn't fit for any adult ("family of one"), yet at the same time it's fine if people don't spend like millionaires."

      "Still haven't seen any proof of how much you paid for Little Cearsers [sic] pizzas."

      Too bad you didn't ask for proof, you asked for my recollection.

      "Are you, at least, going to defend that statement or leave it a lie??"

      I never saw that price. Are you going to whine about something you can't prove?

      "You're welcome to take this discussion back 'on topic' if you ever feel like it."

      I invited you to. If you're going to lie and say that I "have nothing to say", instead, then there's obviously no way for me to take the discussion back on topic. By the way, you don't get to put that phrase in quotes, as many times as you've accused me of going off topic. It's not as if that's something you're questioning the meaning or validity of.

      Delete
    21. "No, it was a single car used for the example, not a comment on every Mustang."

      Yes, I know that. One single YEAR was being discussed. YOU even brought the ONE particular year into play. Then you can't even defend your own statement.

      " Ford itself lists the Mustang II on its history of Mustangs."

      Oh? Prove it. Was it called "Mustang" as YOU said? Or "Mustang II" as I said?

      "What part of "not at base price" is confusing you?"

      Apparently, the part where you claim (as fact) the Mustang cost $5K in 1975. Can you bring evidence of that claim?

      "Too bad you didn't ask for proof, you asked for my recollection."

      Never did I ask for your recollection.
      Remember this:
      YOU: "Not where I lived. So, you can't judge my math on your claimed experience."
      ME: "They didn't have 'pan-pan' or 'pizza-pizza' where you lived? How much did they cost you? You forgot to mention that part."
      YOU: "They sure as hell weren't two for five dollars. That doesn't come into question until you provide some sort of evidence that they were at that price where you lived."

      I brought the "some sort of evidence" that you asked for. You did not. What part of proving what you say are you having difficulties with? Because I specifically asked you how much they cost and you refused to answer. You'd be better off going back to asking what Jesus said about minimum wage. You obviously can't go anywhere with that one either, or you would have.

      "I never saw that price. Are you going to whine about something you can't prove?"

      I did prove it. You are lying about what you saw. Unless the Army now hires blind people. Because if you were blind at the age of 7 and can now see, then that would be a miracle that you would be able to cite for your inability to 'see' the price of Little Ceaser's pizzas.

      "By the way, you don't get to put that phrase in quotes, as many times as you've accused me of going off topic."

      I didn't put it in quotes. Another of your many ... many lies.

      Delete
    22. "Yes, I know that. One single YEAR was being discussed. YOU even brought the ONE particular year into play."

      How would inflation be calculated without a year?

      "Oh? Prove it."

      Too easy: http://corporate.ford.com/vehicles/ford-mustang-story . "Mustang" is right in the title. Note this line in particular: "In 1975, V-8 power returned to the Mustang." Not "Mustang II", but just "Mustang". So, again, will you call up Ford and tell them that they're wrong?

      "Apparently, the part where you claim (as fact) the Mustang cost $5K in 1975. Can you bring evidence of that claim?"

      I'm not talking about "the" Mustang, which would mean base price. My example would include additional features. Again, if it will help you get your brain back on track, insert some other vehicle that you say fits the price. Or, just use $4,100 instead, since that still proves the point. Either way, you're not addressing the actual point. Really, if you want to act as if the specific price was meaningful, you could also ask how you get a Kia Rio to sell at exactly fifteen thousand dollars. Obviously, it doesn't matter, because the number is used simply for demonstrative purposes. It's not clear why you didn't wonder about that, and yet at the same time you think the actual price of Mustangs is something to carry on about.

      "Never did I ask for your recollection."

      Liar: "I guess you don't remember when they offered 2 pizzas for the price of one (pizza-pizza or pan-pan). So, now they give you one pizza and you consider that cheaper than before." See the word "remember" there?

      "What part of proving what you say are you having difficulties with?"

      When you bring any website that describes "income laws", I'll stop laughing at you and answer that question. You really didn't think that one through at all.

      Delete
    23. "Because I specifically asked you how much they cost and you refused to answer."

      So you expect me to have kept a log of every price I've seen since I was seven years old? Hilarious.

      "You'd be better off going back to asking what Jesus said about minimum wage."

      I didn't ask what Jesus said about minimum wage. I asked which words of Jesus inspired your attitude.

      "You obviously can't go anywhere with that one either, or you would have."

      You didn't answer the question. I then posted this: "You're a born-again Christian. Are you saying that's not a part of your views here? If that's the case, how does your faith happen to slip your mind when you're in the process of forming your opinions? If your views are against the words of Jesus, then that's a perfectly acceptable answer, by the way. I simply didn't assume that to be the case, and I gave you an opportunity to explain. Feel free to say how you think that's unfair." And, naturally, you said nothing in response. So, nobody's going to buy the argument that your dodge proves that I "can't go anywhere" with that. Sorry. When you fail to address arguments, then my point has been established. That's how it works.

      "I did prove it. You are lying about what you saw."

      No, I'm not. And you can't prove that I remember pizza prices from thirty-four years ago. Again, I never saw those prices. Bitch and moan all you like, but it's not going to make your stance reasonable.

      "I didn't put it in quotes."

      Yes, you did. Single quotes are still quotes. For your education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark . Look over to the right, and you'll see both single quotes and double quotes depicted. Or maybe you'll say that wikipedia isn't a valid source.

      You're still off-topic. You say I can bring it back to the minimum wage, but you seem to be eternally mired in minutiae. And now with even more trivia, since you seem to want to debate punctuation, while you clearly know nothing on the subject. Apparently, there's some magic word or phrase that I need to figure out to get you back to the actual topic, because plain English doesn't register with you.

      Delete
    24. " "In 1975, V-8 power returned to the Mustang." Not "Mustang II", but just "Mustang". So, again, will you call up Ford and tell them that they're wrong?"

      I don't need to call Ford. They call it the "Mustang II" in the picture. And, again, in the picture of the "Mustang II Cobra II". Considering you're such a stickler for exact wording, I figure you would notice a difference.

      " My example would include additional features."

      Now, find the fully loaded Mustang II that cost $5K in 1975. Because the only price close to that was the fully loaded one that cost $4200. Well, that was the only price I could find. Since you are such an expert at the computer you should be able to find "some evidence" that it cost $5K. Bring it or shut the hell up.

      "Really, if you want to act as if the specific price was meaningful, you could also ask how you get a Kia Rio to sell at exactly fifteen thousand dollars."

      That's right, a Kia Rio could be found at exactly that price. A fully loaded '75 Mustang II could not for $5K. Unless you know of further options that Ford didn't offer. Why don't you go back to the Ford site and find those options that took the price to $5K.

      "Liar"

      There is no question mark or actual question. Guessing is not the same as asking. Because I've always been taught that a period at the end of a sentence makes it a statement not a question. But I only went to public schools and never majored in english. Being the english major that you seem to be, you would know that. Do you need to reconsider calling me a liar when I did not lie? (notice the question mark)

      "When you bring any website that describes "income laws", I'll stop laughing at you and answer that question."

      So, bringing an actual "income law" isn't the same? Because I brought an example of a law that determines what income is (income law). That makes it part of the "income laws".

      "So you expect me to have kept a log of every price I've seen since I was seven years old? "

      No. Just look it up on the internet, like I did to prove my stance. It's amazing how you lose your ability to use a computer when you have been proven wrong.

      "Look over to the right, and you'll see both single quotes and double quotes depicted."

      So you've (used quotation mark there) run out of 'on topic' (couple more) things to discuss and you've (another one) decided to teach english? Good for you. I like it when you admit defeat. It's (another one) quite funny.

      "If your views are against the words of Jesus, then that's a perfectly acceptable answer, by the way."

      When you can show my views are against the words of Jesus Christ Our Lord then you'll (another one) have a point. Until then, you're (another one) "off topic" (two more).

      Delete
    25. FYI, at the same Ford.com site you referred to you can find this simple sentence: "In 1974, Mustang was again restyled, this time in the form of Mustang II.". So, in other words they admit that it isn't called a "Mustang" but is called the "Mustang II". Proving (using your preferred site) that I am right and you are wrong. Bring me a link that shows the "Mustang" sold for $5K (any option level) in 1975. Since NONE of the Mustangs you are referencing in your link was called a "Mustang" they were ALL called "Mustang II".
      This must be why you haven't replied, yet. Because you know I am right and you are wrong and you are still searching for a link that will prove something that never existed.
      http://corporate.ford.com/our-company/heritage/vehicle-history-news-detail/687-mustang

      Delete
    26. If you're really interested in knowing what Jesus says on the poor, brabantio, then go to the TTB.org site click on 'listen' then 'listen to todays program' link. Otherwise, click the 'Daily 5-Year Bible Study' link and scroll down to 'Browse the Broadcast Archives ..." link and choose Feb 11 2014.

      Vernon McGee gives a very accurate interpretation of God's Word. As he says: "Puts the rubber to the road" with the hard issues.

      I'm not trying to convert you. You just always seem so interested in what Jesus says about different subjects. Well, this program speaks very closely to the issue at hand and examines some of the questions you are currently asking me about what Jesus says about money and how to divide it among people.
      I invite you to listen to 26 minutes of this program and then reask your question you have of me towards what Jesus says about the poor/rich and minimum wages.

      http://www.ttb.org/index.aspx?parentnavigationid=21717
      http://www.ttb.org/contentpages/21777/8d050a2c-7617-4ac1-a67c-fc5692030686/Daily5-YearBibleStudy.aspx
      http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/thru-the-bible-with-j-vernon-mcgee/listen/

      Delete
    27. "I don't need to call Ford. They call it the "Mustang II" in the picture."

      They list it under the history of the Mustang. How can they do that, if it's based on a Pinto?? It's outrageous! Seriously, though, I'm going to side with the company that actually made the vehicle over you. I hope that doesn't hurt your tender little feelings.

      "Because the only price close to that was the fully loaded one that cost $4200."

      So, the base price was $4,188, and with all the options it was $4,200? Even for the times, that's quite cheap.

      "Bring it or shut the hell up."

      You're the one babbling about it, moron. I already told you to either find a car that you say cost 5K, or use the $4,100 figure since that proves the point anyway. Your failure to grasp the concept of an example for demonstrative purposes is your problem, not mine.

      "Why don't you go back to the Ford site and find those options that took the price to $5K."

      You already said that those options added up to twelve dollars altogether. Or as much as sixty-one dollars if you were rounding down. Show where you found those numbers, then I'll see if I can adjust them.

      "There is no question mark or actual question."

      Liar: "Do you pay more or less for Little Ceaser's [sic] pizza since they have owned those teams?" Even besides that obvious context, which you somehow forgot, it's not as if you weren't looking for information. Perhaps you would be silent if a cop said "I suppose you didn't see that stop sign" because his tone didn't raise at the end as it typically does with a question. That would be terribly stupid of you.

      Delete
    28. "Being the english [sic] major that you seem to be, you would know that. Do you need to reconsider calling me a liar when I did not lie? (notice the question mark)"

      No, because understanding English, I know what "ask" means; "to make a request of " or; "to make a request for ", or, even better; "to seek information". One of Merriam-Webster's examples, to fit their definitions above: "We had to stop and ask directions". Now, if you say "I need to get to the library", nobody's going to say that you didn't ask for directions. Not even you. Or saying "I need help" to a teacher would be asking for help, even if there's not a question mark. Ergo, you were asking for my recollection.

      "So, bringing an actual "income law" isn't the same?"

      No, because there's no evidence that "income laws" exist in the first place. You can't say it fits in a category if there's no category established.

      "Because I brought an example of a law that determines what income is (income law)."

      ERISA didn't determine "what income is". Not that it matters, since no law determines "what income is".

      "No. Just look it up on the internet, like I did to prove my stance."

      That would have nothing to do with whether I was ever aware of a price or not. Did you conveniently forget your claim?

      "So you've (used quotation mark there) run out of 'on topic' (couple more) things to discuss and you've (another one) decided to teach english [sic]?"

      No, I corrected you. If you don't make ignorant comments, then I won't need to teach you these things. That's your fault for saying something wrong, not my fault for addressing it.

      "When you can show my views are against the words of Jesus Christ Our Lord then you'll (another one) have a point."

      I'm not sure how you think Jesus said anything which would align with your absurd position. For instance, Jesus's words in Matthew 25:31-46. You somehow believe that Jesus would support paying those who work insufficient wages ("family of one", remember) at the same time as expressing that sentiment? That's absolutely contradictory. The "least of these" don't deserve inadequate pay because you think they need more education or experience or responsibility. Certainly you aren't going to put your words over those of your savior. The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee...

      "Until then, you're (another one) "off topic" (two more)."

      No, if your own faith promotes fair wages, that's relevant to your comments. Because it prompts the question of what could possibly motivate your views, and how that is more important to you than your faith. And again, you've made enough criticisms of going off-topic that you don't get to put the phrase in quotes, as if you don't accept the validity of the concept. I'm trying to help you to not be such a hypocrite, so you're better off if you pay attention.

      Delete
    29. "FYI, at the same Ford.com site you referred to you can find this simple sentence: "In 1974, Mustang was again restyled, this time in the form of Mustang II.". So, in other words they admit that it isn't called a "Mustang" but is called the "Mustang II"."

      It was "restyled", but still on their history of Mustangs. And they still listed "Mustang" when talking about the "Mustang II". You haven't changed that.

      "Bring me a link that shows the "Mustang" sold for $5K (any option level) in 1975."

      Where's the breakdown of options and their costs? You would seem to have seen it.

      "You just always seem so interested in what Jesus says about different subjects."

      What I'm interested in is the very clear impression that you only care about the Bible when you can use it to justify discrimination. When it actually deals with helping people, you don't seem to pick up on those verses. The point being that you can't trumpet your holiness when you don't really follow your own religious text.

      And as much as you question my ability to understand the Bible, I find it hilarious that you have to refer to another source. You should be able to cite something that explains how Jesus would find your attitude remotely acceptable. If you don't know, then you might want to re-examine either your views or your stated faith, because they really need to match up.

      I'm just trying to help you become a decent person. Don't fight it.

      Delete
    30. As an afterthought, someone who goes five or so days without posting shouldn't get impatient after twelve hours. In fact, you shouldn't be impatient at all.

      For instance:"23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
      24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
      25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
      26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

      I'm willing to bet good money that those verses alone are more relevant to your self-improvement than anything Vernon McGee says. And it didn't take anywhere close to 26 minutes to find them. You're welcome.

      Delete
    31. "You're the one babbling about it, moron. I already told you to either find a car that you say cost 5K, or use the $4,100 figure since that proves the point anyway."

      Factually, YOU are the one who said a non-existent car cost $5K in 1975, I'm just trying to correct your mistake (or lie, whichever you would like to call it):
      YOU said this: "Not when comparing prices thirty-two years apart. Along the lines of what I said earlier, you think that a new $15,000 Kia Rio today has more value than a new $5,000 Mustang in 1975? Fifteen is more than five, so you must.".
      No one had mentioned Fords or Kias before you did. Ford even admits that it was called a "Mustang II", according to your source. So you can stop THAT whine right now.

      "Liar: "Do you pay more or less for Little Ceaser's [sic] pizza since they have owned those teams?" "

      So, you while you are attempting to prove I asked a question about your "recollection" you bring in a DIFFERENT quote than the original one you asked about (and was called on for it not being a question). Good job.
      Original statement by ME: "Never did I ask for your recollection."
      Response by YOU: "Liar: "I guess you don't remember when they offered 2 pizzas for the price of one (pizza-pizza or pan-pan). So, now they give you one pizza and you consider that cheaper than before." See the word "remember" there?"

      "ERISA didn't determine "what income is"."

      The Law I brought, as an example, did.

      "What I'm interested in is the very clear impression that you only care about the Bible when you can use it to justify discrimination."

      Where am I using the Bible to justify discrimination? What discrimination is even being discussed during a conversation on minimum wages?

      "I'm not sure how you think Jesus said anything which would align with your absurd position."

      You can always read Ecclesiastes 5:7-6:12. Those verses are chock full of hearty information about rich/poor people and wealth relating to my positions. BTW today's program is on those verses.

      "And as much as you question my ability to understand the Bible, I find it hilarious that you have to refer to another source."

      As much you you question my ability with the english language, I find it hilarious that you have to refer to another source, also.

      "I'm willing to bet good money that those verses alone are more relevant to your self-improvement than anything Vernon McGee says."

      One thing you could do is tell me where those verses came from so I can ponder their relevance to what you're trying to say.
      However, you can always fulfill that offer by going here: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/thru-the-bible-with-j-vernon-mcgee/listen/matthew-24322530-204462.html

      You could point out (if you knew you Bible) that I am a little distant from these Biblical instructions: 2 Timothy 2:24, 2 Timothy 2:23-24, Proverbs 3:30, Proverbs 26:4 AND Proverbs 23:9. But, I'm not so sure you really have a Bible. I'm sure you can't find it on the internet, because you can't even find Mustang II prices from years gone by.

      Delete
    32. "As an afterthought, someone who goes five or so days without posting shouldn't get impatient after twelve hours. In fact, you shouldn't be impatient at all."

      Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that military people never get vacations ... like those of us who work for a living get. So, you wouldn't know anything about them. I'll make sure I never let that happen again.

      Delete
    33. "Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that military people never get vacations ... like those of us who work for a living get."

      I should clarify that to 'you military lifers who conveniently pick an MOS that allows you to spend you working hours chit-chatting with fellow liberals and arguing with right-wingers'. I fully respect and thank the rest of the military for the service they provide for the safety of our country.
      What are you up to now? About 16-17 years of chatting on the computer on taxpayer time?

      Delete
    34. "Factually, YOU are the one who said a non-existent car cost $5K in 1975, I'm just trying to correct your mistake (or lie, whichever you would like to call it):"

      A mistake would be in good faith, but you already refused to accept that. I wonder why you're backtracking.

      "No one had mentioned Fords or Kias before you did."

      So what? It was an example. That mention isn't justification for you to harp on irrelevant details.

      "Ford even admits that it was called a "Mustang II", according to your source."

      Yet, it was on their history of Mustangs. How do you explain that?

      "So you can stop THAT whine right now."

      So, when I tell you three times to find another car to use instead, or to use the $4,100, that's a "whine", but you continuously ignoring that in order to complain even more is supposedly something respectable. It's quite the magical little world between your ears, isn't it?

      However, since you seem to think that I should just "get over it" when you manufacture a quote and attribute it to me, you can just get over this. Either you think accuracy is important, in which case you need to account for your own behavior, or it's not, in which case you can't possibly take issue with the details used for a demonstrative example. Further, if you're going to insist that ERISA is an "income law" simply because it came up on a web search, then you can't possibly say that the 1975 Mustang doesn't exist, because that comes up on web searches. Obviously, since you thought it was meaningful that "income" was part of the title of the law, you're promoting the relevance of the fact that "Mustang" is part of the name of the car. The same principle applies, and actually works much better for me (per Ford's own website).
      To demonstrate,"You said it had the word "income" in the title of the LAW." would translate to:"You admit that "Mustang" is in the name of the car."

      Hence, your own standards work in my favor. You've precluded your own criticisms, unless you want to withdraw your previous arguments in shame.

      "So, you while you are attempting to prove I asked a question about your "recollection" you bring in a DIFFERENT quote than the original one you asked about (and was called on for it not being a question)."

      Yes, because context matters. It's not as if I would forget your previous question while evaluating what you say.

      "The Law [sic] I brought, as an example, did."

      The law that wasn't ERISA? You mean, the tax law that determined when income became taxable? Funny about that, since your phrase "tax and income laws" would really translate to "tax and tax laws". And that's an awfully subtle distinction, don't you think?

      "What discrimination is even being discussed during a conversation on minimum wages?"

      Who said I was referring to this thread?

      "You can always read Ecclesiastes 5:7-6:12."

      That isn't from Jesus. And condemning the love of wealth doesn't help you, since it sounds like the Bible is whining about CEOs, as you would say. Where does it suggest that any workers deserve insufficient pay?

      Delete
    35. "As much you you [sic] question my ability with the english [sic] language, I find it hilarious that you have to refer to another source, also."

      That may be the dumbest thing you've said, which is very impressive. What I did was provide proof of what I was saying. Objective sources for substantiation of my point. That's absolutely not the same as you passing on expressing your personal views by handing the question off to some random preacher.

      "One thing you could do is tell me where those verses came from so I can ponder their relevance to what you're trying to say."

      You should know where they came from, since you cited half of it in that very post. In fact, you quoted part of it, "2 Timothy 2:24", then repeated that verse in "2 Timothy 2:23-24". Weird. I'm also not sure how you don't grasp the relevance, since you should always strive to be a better Christian. It's not as if the context is going to reverse it and prove that it actually wants you to be a hypocrite. Incidentally, you just asked for information without using a question mark. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

      "I'm sure you can't find it on the internet, because you can't even find Mustang II prices from years gone by."

      I see the prices just fine. I don't see where you found all those additional features for twelve extra dollars, though. Like I said, show me that page and I'll try to adjust the numbers. You must have forgotten to do that, because surely you did your research before making such a claim. Right?

      "I forgot that military people never get vacations ... like those of us who work for a living get."

      You didn't get leave when you were in the Army? Or was the paperwork too complicated for you?

      "I should clarify that to 'you military lifers who conveniently pick an MOS that allows you to spend you [sic] working hours chit-chatting with fellow liberals and arguing with right-wingers'."

      How would 68W be convenient for that? We don't have a single 42A in my section.

      "I fully respect and thank the rest of the military for the service they provide for the safety of our country."

      Of course, because veterans who served as medics aren't worthy of your appreciation. I'm heartbroken (sarcasm). Seriously, thanks for showing how far into the muck your pettiness takes you. I would guess that your sense of propriety is inherited from parents who charge a teenager rent while he's pursuing basic educational goals needed for getting a good job.

      "What are you up to now? About 16-17 years of chatting on the computer on taxpayer time?"

      I've only been in this section since September, so you're a bit off. Besides that, I can take a few minutes during down time to smack you around without compromising integrity. That's doubly justified since I could go home for breakfast and lunch, and I work through both instead. And especially considering all the product I've created during my personal time, and the time I've saved everyone in my section through my initiative, it's going to be pretty damn hard for you to argue that I'm doing something wrong. Almost as hard as finding a website that describes "income laws".

      But, as always, I eagerly invite you to try.

      Delete
    36. "So what? It was an example."

      It sounded like you're trying to say I used a non-existent car to show higher cost of living from now to then. When you use actual prices of a car, that does exist, it is right on par with the cost of living today as is was then. Which doesn't help your case that minimum wage, now, is too low when compared to then after factoring in cost of living increases.

      "That isn't from Jesus. And condemning the love of wealth doesn't help you, since it sounds like the Bible is whining about CEOs, as you would say."

      Yes it is from Jesus Christ Our Lord.
      The Bible is "whining" about CEO's who don't treat their employees correctly.

      " Objective sources for substantiation of my point."

      So, "objective sources" are ok for you, but not for me?

      Delete
    37. "It sounded like you're trying to say I used a non-existent car to show higher cost of living from now to then. When you use actual prices of a car, that does exist, it is right on par with the cost of living today as is was then."

      So you're saying that $4,100 is "on par" with $15,000? That's quite a change in your tune: "Yes, a Kia Rio is [sic] has more value than a new Mustang in 75. $15K IS more than $5K." The point wasn't that they were supposed to be comparable cars. That's exactly why I said five thousand dollars, because that's a greater amount considering inflation. Maybe if you had conceded that obvious fact, instead of frothing at the mouth over trivia, you wouldn't have tripped yourself up so badly.

      Again, you can't claim that a 1975 Mustang is non-existent unless you retract your entire "income laws" argument. I'm truly going to enjoy reminding you of that throughout this thread. And if you want to give me a chance to make it five thousand dollars, let me see your source for additional feature prices, because I'm pretty sure they don't all add up to twelve dollars. What are you scared of?

      "Yes it is from Jesus Christ Our Lord."

      So, are quotes from Lot also attributable to Jesus? Or from Job, Moses, Noah, etc? Is the phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" the words of Jesus, according to you? This should be riotous.

      "The Bible is "whining" about CEO's who don't treat their employees correctly."

      So offering insufficient pay is treating employees correctly?

      "So, "objective sources" are ok for you, but not for me?"

      What objective source did you bring?

      Delete
    38. "So you're saying that $4,100 is "on par" with $15,000?"

      Yes, according to your given standards.

      "That's quite a change in your tune: "Yes, a Kia Rio is [sic] has more value than a new Mustang in 75"

      That's right, because there was no such thing as a "Mustang" in 1975. Only the "Mustang II". But, you didn't say Mustang II, you used a car that was not sold that year. So, obviously, there is more value in a vehicle that WAS sold than one that was NOT.

      "The point wasn't that they were supposed to be comparable cars."

      I know what your point was. And you couldn't support it with any kind of evidence. While I could.

      "Again, you can't claim that a 1975 Mustang is non-existent unless you retract your entire "income laws" argument. "

      Yes I can, because I brought evidence of my claim. While you could not.

      "I'm truly going to enjoy reminding you of that throughout this thread."

      You keep doing that. It makes you look like a fool.

      "So, are quotes from Lot also attributable to Jesus? Or from Job, Moses, Noah, etc?"

      The Bible is the Word of God, Jesus Christ Our Lord is God. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant.

      "So offering insufficient pay is treating employees correctly?"

      Where does the Bible say that?

      "What objective source did you bring?"

      J. Vernon McGee. What "objective" source did you bring?

      Delete
    39. "Yes, according to your given standards."

      So you now accept the concept of inflation. Good for you.

      "That's right, because there was no such thing as a "Mustang" in 1975."

      You're lying. You said "$15K IS more than $5K". Your answer explicitly addressed the number given, so your reason was not "there is more value in a vehicle that WAS sold than one that was NOT." You then said "besides" and stated the argument you're repeating here, which means it was in addition to your claim that "$15K IS more than $5K". Arguing that $15K is more than zero now doesn't magically replace what you said previously.

      In fact, you contradict yourself further. Here's you, starting with the "besides" I mentioned: "Besides, they didn't MAKE a Mustang in 1975. Do you know that the 75 Mustang II was design-based from the Ford Pinto? So, I don't think your 1975 Mustang II even cost $5K when new." Read that a couple of times if you need. You said "your 1975 Mustang II", clearly admitting that there is an actual car in the example. All you did was adjust the name that I used, while you linked an estimation of price to "a new Mustang in 75". Not a "Mustang II", but "Mustang". Your words.

      But wait, there's even more! Continuing from the previous quote: "But, in order for you to prove your statement, I would expect you to have already done the research and you know exactly how they cost new, right? RIGHT?" Oh, how precious. Apparently, if your "no such thing" line is supposed to be credible, you were demanding the precise cost of imaginary vehicles. No, surely you weren't doing that. In fact, your "Mustang II" was merely your name for the "1975 Mustang" that I used for the example. So, your claim that you were saying that the vehicle did not exist at all is plainly false.

      "But, you didn't say Mustang II, you used a car that was not sold that year."

      A Mustang II is a type of Mustang. That's exactly why Ford lists it on their history of Mustangs. Besides, "Mustang" is right there in the name, so that's proof that there's a 1975 Mustang. That's your standard, so you're going to comply with it.

      "I know what your point was."

      Obviously, you didn't, because the point wasn't that the cost of comparable cars was a factor in cost of living. It was a demonstration of inflation, since you were having trouble with the concept that $5 for two pizzas in 1980 was more expensive than $5 for one pizza today.

      "And you couldn't support it with any kind of evidence."

      Inflation is fairly well-documented. You've actually calculated it yourself on this thread, so I would say that you have to accept the evidence.

      "Yes I can, because I brought evidence of my claim."

      No, you didn't. You simply said you brought examples, while there's no evidence of "income laws" as a concept to begin with. On the other hand, there is evidence of the Mustang as a concept. I win. By the way, where's that breakdown of additional features that you claimed you saw? You seem awfully shy about that, for some reason.

      Delete
    40. "The Bible is the Word of God, Jesus Christ Our Lord is God. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant."

      You didn't answer the question. Do you claim that quotes from Lot (as one example) are the words of Jesus or not? So you don't have any excuse for not grasping the distinction at hand, saying that the Bible comes from the Lord doesn't mean that every quote included counts as the words of Jesus. For instance, you wouldn't apply a quote from Voldemort to the philosophy or character of J.K. Rowling. In the same manner, you can't take the words of a person in the Bible and apply that to the philosophy or character of Jesus. I feel pretty confident in saying that "The word from me is firm: if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you shall be torn limb from limb, and your houses shall be laid in ruins" isn't particularly consistent with the views of Jesus. Perhaps you'd like to dispute that.

      "Where does the Bible say that?"

      I'm sure it doesn't, obviously. I was asking for your opinion.

      "J. Vernon McGee. What "objective" source did you bring?"

      Well, since your comment was in the context of your struggles with the English language, you must have been referring to Merriam-Webster and the wikipedia link on quotation marks. If you're really questioning the objectivity of those sources, then you should do so directly instead of asking questions which circle back to your own previous comments.

      The rules of English are objective. According to Merriam-Webster: "a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations ". All such established systems are objective. Math would be the most obvious example. The rules are set, and conclusions obtained while following those rules is a matter of fact.

      On the other hand, religious matters are subjective, since they are entirely open to interpretation. As demonstrated in your own words: "What does Jesus Christ teach on this matter? Perhaps you can enlighten me with your interpretation of His teachings." And: "Vernon McGee gives a very accurate interpretation of God's Word." So, no, the preacher you referred to for interpreting the Bible was not an objective source. Perhaps you should try to understand words before making assertions that involve them.

      Delete
    41. "A Mustang II is a type of Mustang. That's exactly why Ford lists it on their history of Mustangs."

      Yes, I know that. But, being such a stickler for exact wording (that you are), then you should have known that there was no "Mustang" offered in 1975. It was called the "Mustang II". And no version of the car you are talking about cost $5K when new. Which disputes your inflation/cost of living comparison between then and now.

      "It was a demonstration of inflation, since you were having trouble with the concept that $5 for two pizzas in 1980 was more expensive than $5 for one pizza today."

      Apples and oranges. Did you get 2 large pizzas or 2 small pizzas back then? Do you get one large pizza or one small pizza now? If you're going to whine about inflation try to compare 'like' items and not different ones.

      "No, you didn't. You simply said you brought examples, while there's no evidence of "income laws" as a concept to begin with."

      Evidence is a related word to example. Being the english major, you seem to be, you would already know that and you are making a strawman argument.

      "You didn't answer the question."

      Yes ... I did. You accepting that answer is not my responsibility or worry.

      "I'm sure it doesn't, obviously."

      Well, we finally agree on something.

      " Perhaps you should try to understand words before making assertions that involve them."

      Words like: example/evidence? or Mustang and Mustang II ? You're one to talk about understanding words and assertions that involve them.

      Delete
    42. "Yes, I know that. But, being such a stickler for exact wording (that you are), then you should have known that there was no "Mustang" offered in 1975."

      Is this really an established rule of some sort? If so, where it is explained, and why would anyone besides an automotive enthusiast or expert be aware of it? If that's really the case, you could have just put "[sic]" afterwards to note that you didn't make the supposed error, instead of making ludicrous charges of dishonesty. Seriously, get some self-control.

      "And no version of the car you are talking about cost $5K when new."

      I won't know that until I see that additional features breakdown you saw. The twelve dollar estimate still seems low.

      "Which disputes your inflation/cost of living comparison between then and now."

      Cost of living wasn't the point. It was a demonstration of inflation, which you conceded by saying the two cars were "on par" after claiming that the Kia had "more value" than the Mustang.

      "Did you get 2 large pizzas or 2 small pizzas back then? Do you get one large pizza or one small pizza now?"

      You get a large pizza now. So, if it was two large pizzas then, it's still cheaper now.

      "Evidence is a related word to example. Being the english [sic] major, you seem to be, you would already know that and you are making a strawman argument."

      A related word is not an identical word, moron. You also still continue to misuse "strawman argument". Look it up at some point.

      "Yes ... I did."

      No, you didn't. Saying the Bible is the word of the Lord doesn't clarify whether you think every quote that everyone in it says counts as the words of Jesus or not.

      "Well, we finally agree on something."

      And now you say whether you think insufficient pay is fair treatment of employees or not.

      "Words like: example/evidence? or Mustang and Mustang II ? You're one to talk about understanding words and assertions that involve them."

      I understand those words. You already admitted that the Mustang II is a type of Mustang. And if you want to try to prove that "example" is the same as "evidence", feel free to step into the arena instead of thumping your chest from the nosebleed seats.

      Delete
    43. "You get a large pizza now."

      How big is that 'large' pizza? 12"? 14"? 18"? Are they similar in sizes as back when you are claiming? Because (I assume) you know that a 12" large pizza is different "value" than a 14" large pizza. Apples and oranges. Get your facts straight before you come back this time.

      " If so, where it is explained, and why would anyone besides an automotive enthusiast or expert be aware of it?"

      Every one of those thousands of people who bought one, during those years, knows it was a Mustang II. Along with every other person who saw one on the street. It was clearly marked Mustang II. Well, unless someone pried off the "II" symbol.
      Did they ever come out with a Mustang III? If not, then the Mustang II is obviously different in some way than the historical Mustang you keep referring to from the Ford site.

      " The twelve dollar estimate still seems low."

      You're the one who said it was $12, not me. Go to the links I provided and check for yourself what the options were.

      " It was a demonstration of inflation, which you conceded by saying the two cars were "on par" after claiming that the Kia had "more value" than the Mustang."

      Yes, I know that. Because there was no "Mustang" sold in 75 by Ford (new) only Mustang II's. There is an obvious difference or Ford wouldn't have called this model a different name for those few years and then go back to calling it Mustang.
      So, obviously, a non-existent car has less value than a real car. If you had properly called it Mustang II (like any other intelligent person would have) then we could have skipped this elongated discussion on cars that were never made. Of course your price was way off the actual price so it tweaked your calculations to show some kind of abnormal inflation. Using the real price of the actual car made the inflation factor on par with the price of similar priced cars currently. Making them similar "value". As I said.

      "You also still continue to misuse "strawman argument". Look it up at some point."

      So? And, no. You misused "Mustang" and continue to do it and defend your use. Why should I change and not you?

      Delete
  4. "Are they similar in sizes as back when you are claiming?"

    You brought it up. If you didn't think there was any possible comparison, why did you ask about it?

    "Because (I assume) you know that a 12" large pizza is different "value" than a 14" large pizza."

    Are you sure they even have a 12" large? It would seem that's usually considered to be "medium". Meanwhile, it's a 14" pizza.

    "Get your facts straight before you come back this time."

    I didn't expect that you wouldn't know how big their large pizza is, since you can easily find that information online. And since you didn't ask for specific measurements in your previous post, you can't reasonably have expected me to assume that you didn't know that. You asked in terms of "large" and "small", so I answered you in those terms. Would you care to explain your problem with that?

    "Every one of those thousands of people who bought one, during those years, knows it was a Mustang II."

    Oh, so I would have to purchase a car when I was two years old in order to know that rule. Thanks for establishing that you can't hold me accountable for not calling it a "Mustang II". Even if your standard was valid, though, seeing "Mustang II" on a car doesn't dictate that "Mustang" is in any way inappropriate. I saw "Mustang II" before I gave the example, I simply had no reason whatsoever to think one couldn't call it a "Mustang". And you haven't provided a single reason since.

    "Did they ever come out with a Mustang III? If not, then the Mustang II is obviously different in some way than the historical Mustang you keep referring to from the Ford site."

    You already admitted it's a type of Mustang, so your murky "Mustang III" argument probably isn't going to change anything for you.

    "You're the one who said it was $12, not me."

    No, you said the fully loaded version was $4,200, while the base price was $4,188. That's a twelve-dollar difference.

    "Go to the links I provided and check for yourself what the options were."

    Where did your links show option prices?

    "Yes, I know that. Because there was no "Mustang" sold in 75 by Ford (new) only Mustang II's. There is an obvious difference or Ford wouldn't have called this model a different name for those few years and then go back to calling it Mustang."

    Was that supposed to follow the quote you pasted there? It really doesn't matter what you say about the Mustang, because you contradicted yourself. You can't say that the Kia has more value and then say the two cars are "on par".

    "So, obviously, a non-existent car has less value than a real car."

    Sorry, you've already been caught lying about this once. Repeating it doesn't make it any better. If you want to try that, feel free to address what you said initially about "your Mustang II" and why you asked for the exact price of a car you say doesn't exist. And again, "Mustang" is right in the name, so it's a Mustang. That's your standard, and you will comply to your own standard.

    "If you had properly called it Mustang II (like any other intelligent person would have) then we could have skipped this elongated discussion on cars that were never made."

    Intelligence relies on having bought a Mustang II in 1975? Fascinating. And no, you can't blame me for your obsession with such minutiae. Nobody forced you to keep blathering about it except yourself. If you didn't want an "elongated" discussion, you could have taken one of my three offers to pick a different car or use the $4,100 figure. Obviously, you had zero interest in moving forward, while I clearly didn't care about your nitpicking nonsense. I win again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Of course your price was way off the actual price so it tweaked your calculations to show some kind of abnormal inflation."

      The "actual price" of the "non-existent" car? How stupid can you get, seriously? And what "abnormal inflation" are you babbling about? It was an example for demonstrative purposes. If it was about the actual price of Mustangs, I wouldn't have repeatedly told you to pick another car.

      "Using the real price of the actual car made the inflation factor on par with the price of similar priced cars currently. Making them similar "value". As I said."

      As you said after this: "Yes, a Kia Rio is [sic] has more value than a new Mustang in 75. $15K IS more than $5K." As I said, the $4,100 number proves my point just as well, because going from an eleven thousand dollar difference to "on par" when accounting for inflation flatly disproves your "more value" claim.

      "So?"

      So, it makes you look both ignorant and arrogant.

      "And, no. You misused "Mustang" and continue to do it and defend your use."

      No, you said yourself that the Mustang II was a type of Mustang, and now you've restricted the expectations for proper usage to people who bought cars or paid attention to lettering on cars thirty-nine years ago. So, I'm exempt from that, because I was only two at the time. I don't have to defend myself, since you exonerated me all on your own. So now you're blissfully freed from the overlong conversation that you really, truly didn't want to be a part of (sarcasm).

      "Why should I change and not you?"

      I gave you the chance to explain why I should change, when I asked you how this supposed rule was established and how the vast majority of people would know about it. Since your criteria for needing to say "Mustang II" don't apply to me, I don't have to say "Mustang II". Incidentally, in case you hadn't heard, there's no such thing as "income laws". Yet, you insist that I'm accountable for discussing a "non-existent" car (while you cite the "actual price" of that car, which I'm still laughing at you for). Even if you had an argument about the Mustang, why should I change and not you?

      I notice that you didn't try to defend your laughable "Evidence is a related word to example" argument. Nor did you explain how quotes from any person in the Bible supposedly qualify as the words of Jesus. Just to preempt your predictable response, I say "any person" because you haven't said how the book of Ecclesiastes would be any different from the words of any other random person. Feel free to do that, if you have any confidence in your ability to discuss the Bible. Or you could just get back to the actual topic, for the sake of novelty if nothing else.

      Delete
  5. "I didn't expect that you wouldn't know how big their large pizza is, since you can easily find that information online."

    I guess you don't plan on proving what you say. You never do.

    "Oh, so I would have to purchase a car when I was two years old in order to know that rule."

    My parents bought one when you were two. You know what? It was called a Mustang II. It was also a lemon (transmission problems from day one). Fix Or Repair Daily.

    "Where did your links show option prices?"

    Read 'em and weep.

    "You can't say that the Kia has more value and then say the two cars are "on par"."

    I guess it is true, you don't have the intellect to follow simple conversations.

    "Intelligence relies on having bought a Mustang II in 1975?"

    I believe I said "called". But, your reading comprehension level isn't the best to begin with, so I understand you not being able to follow along.

    "And no, you can't blame me for your obsession with such minutiae."

    Says the guy who types (sic) after every typo. ROTFLMAO

    "So, I'm exempt from that, because I was only two at the time. "

    Yes, you're exempt from discussing honestly because of your moral teachings. You can run along and play now.

    " Incidentally, in case you hadn't heard, there's no such thing as "income laws"."

    Yes there is. A simple google search will find an example on the first page.

    "Nor did you explain how quotes from any person in the Bible supposedly qualify as the words of Jesus."

    I did fully explain that. Jesus is God, the Bible is the Word of God. What part are you having problems with?

    "Or you could just get back to the actual topic, for the sake of novelty if nothing else."

    Says the kettle to the pot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I guess you don't plan on proving what you say. You never do."

      I answered your questions, as you posed them, both times. So, what are you whining about?

      "My parents bought one when you were two."

      Is that supposed to be relevant?

      "Read 'em and weep."

      I did, and I don't see what you claim is there. I wouldn't "weep" anyway, because nothing I've said hinges on any actual price of any car.

      "I guess it is true, you don't have the intellect to follow simple conversations."

      Projection. You contradicted yourself, meaning you can't even keep track of your own assertions. If you can't address that like an adult, don't comment on it at all.

      "I believe I said "called"."

      No, you said this: "Every one of those thousands of people who bought one, during those years, knows it was a Mustang II. Along with every other person who saw one on the street. It was clearly marked Mustang II." So, you're hinging "intelligent" to the experience of people "during those years". Which means all of your criticism along this line is invalid, and you especially had no right to lob any charge of dishonesty regarding it. Let's see if your morals lead you to do the right thing at this point.

      "Says the guy who types (sic) [sic] after every typo. ROTFLMAO"

      Pointing out that an error belongs to you doesn't distract from the topic.

      "Yes, you're exempt from discussing honestly because of your moral teachings."

      Obviously moral teachings have nothing to do with it, since you tried to claim that your original point was that the value of the 1975 Mustang is zero, when you then refer to the "actual price" of the very car I was referencing. You got caught lying. Meanwhile, the phrase "exempt from that" was referring to your expectations for saying "Mustang II". Either you can't follow the conversation, or you're lying again. You tell me which one.

      "A simple google [sic] search will find an example on the first page."

      Then you can also find an example of a "valor law". Yes or no?

      "Jesus is God, the Bible is the Word of God."

      I didn't say "Word", which means "gospel" in that context (note your own capitalization). I said "words", as in speech. What part of that are you having problems with? And does anyone besides you refer to the Bible as the "Word of Jesus"? If not, I don't see how you could have misread what I wrote. Either way, now that I've set you straight, you can answer the question.

      "Says the kettle to the pot."

      I've invited you multiple times to get back on track. What's your expectation, that I'm supposed to have a discussion without your participation? By the way, it's the pot that calls the kettle black, not the other way around. And, as the second verse of the old poem goes;

      ""Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
      "'Tis your own dirty image you see;
      For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
      That your blackness is mirrored in me."

      So, you referring to me as "the kettle" is one of the few sensible comments I've ever seen you make. Congratulations.

      Delete
  6. "Is that supposed to be relevant?"

    As relevant as your claim you didn't know what a Mustang II is because you were only 2 when they were sold.

    " I wouldn't "weep" anyway, because nothing I've said hinges on any actual price of any car."

    Only your claim of higher "cost of living" with the higher price. So, in your world, your claims are truly nothing.

    "So, you're hinging "intelligent" to the experience of people "during those years"."

    Which is probably why you don't understand.

    "Obviously moral teachings have nothing to do with it, since you tried to claim that your original point was that the value of the 1975 Mustang is zero, when you then refer to the "actual price" of the very car I was referencing. You got caught lying."

    I've never referenced the 75 Mustang. I am smart enough to know there wasn't a Mustang sold in those years. Only the Mustang II. Which is obviously different or Ford wouldn't have called it a different name than ALL the other Mustangs in it's history.

    "Then you can also find an example of a "valor law". Yes or no?"

    Why would I go off topic with something like that?

    " I said "words", as in speech."

    Where was "speech" specified? You asked for the words of Jesus. The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is God ... hence the Bible is the Word Of Jesus.

    "By the way, it's the pot that calls the kettle black, not the other way around."

    My statements are strictly controlled by old poems? Hmmm, I guess if that's your only defense, you can go with whatever makes you happy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As relevant as your claim you didn't know what a Mustang II is because you were only 2 when they were sold."

      Where did I say I "didn't know" what a Mustang II is? And, since you can't keep tabs on what you say: "Every one of those thousands of people who bought one, during those years, knows it was a Mustang II. Along with every other person who saw one on the street." Remember that I asked what rule was established to restrict people from calling it a "Mustang". Whether you saw "Mustang II" or not, you could still call it a "Mustang". Even beyond your time-specific rule that doesn't apply to me, you failed miserably. Also, most obviously, it's entirely relevant to point out that I'm exempt from a standard for behavior when you're chastising me for not meeting that standard.

      "Only your claim of higher "cost of living" with the higher price."

      Oh, how delicious: "Do you really think those endorsement contracts don't raise prices of everything related to the company that pays for that endorsement?" And: "Let's see, athletes used to be paid in the thousands of dollars, now they are paid in the millions of dollars. Perhaps you're right and that income increase has nothing to do with the increase of products sold today. But, I highly doubt you are right." On the other hand, my example was to demonstrate inflation in general. A "higher price" would only apply to comparable items. Also, in case you thought I wouldn't notice, you still didn't say where that list of options was.

      "Which is probably why you don't understand."

      Because your argument is idiotic, yes. I'm sorry that you're bitter about shooting down your own criticisms, but you'll just have to learn to do better in the future.

      "I've never referenced the 75 Mustang."

      I said you were talking about the "car I was referencing", not the "75 Mustang". Here's you: "So, I don't think your 1975 Mustang II even cost $5K when new. But, in order for you to prove your statement, I would expect you to have already done the research and you know exactly how they cost new, right?" You were indisputably referring to the car I used in my example. See, you can't say that I was talking about the Mustang II, even going as far as citing an actual price, and also say that I was talking about a non-existent car that has no value at the same time. If you thought the car didn't exist, you wouldn't have said that it actually cost $4,100 instead of $5K. As I said, you got caught lying.

      Delete
  7. "Which is obviously different or Ford wouldn't have called it a different name than ALL the other Mustangs in it's [sic] history."

    Moron, "other Mustangs" would dictate that the Mustang II is also a "Mustang". I may not even need to use your "income laws" standard against you at this point, since you've justified "1975 Mustang" in multiple ways.

    "Why would I go off topic with something like that?"

    You aren't on topic now, jackass. I'll take your cowardly and poorly-planned dodge as an admission that there are no "income laws". Thank you.

    "Where was "speech" specified? You asked for the words of Jesus."

    You changed it from "Word", now. Interesting. The obvious meaning of "words" is speech. Since I don't believe that Jesus is God, you couldn't assume that I was referring to the entire Bible as the "Word of Jesus". Especially when I used the plural and without capitalization. But, to play along with your farce for a moment, do you need "speech of Jesus" to be used instead? Or would that make you think that it had to be speaking to the masses, as in "a speech"? You just let me know what particulars you need so that your little brain doesn't get all confused next time.

    And I'll ask again, who (besides you) refers to the Bible with that phrase? I'll also ask you to answer the question, again, now that your supposed confusion has been cleared up. Does Ecclesiastes qualify as the "speech of Jesus", or the "spoken word of Jesus as conveyed in the Bible", or whatever exact wording you're being a stickler for?

    "My statements are strictly controlled by old poems?"

    No, moron, I said "And" before mentioning the poem. It was a separate comment. The phrase is "pot calling the kettle black", whether you've ever read the poem or not. Look it up if you don't believe it. But I also like how my words are supposedly "strictly controlled" by the speech of people thirty-nine years ago, while you think that you can rearrange the wording of well-established idioms at your whim.

    "Hmmm, I guess if that's your only defense, you can go with whatever makes you happy."

    Actually, I said this: "I've invited you multiple times to get back on track. What's your expectation, that I'm supposed to have a discussion without your participation?" You weren't up to the task of answering that, apparently. Meanwhile, the correction of your phrasing was simply for your future reference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Whether you saw "Mustang II" or not, you could still call it a "Mustang"."

      You can call it a Ferrari for all I care. The true name is Mustang II. That's what Ford called it. So, unless you know something Ford doesn't then the name is and always will be Mustang II for those cars sold at that time. Is the Audi A3 the same as an Audi A4 or A5 or A6 or A8? Let me help you: NO they are different vehicles but, lo and behold, they all are Audi A cars. Does that make the Audi A3 the same as an Audi A8? Perhaps you DO think an Audi A8 is the same as an Audi A3.

      " I'll take your cowardly and poorly-planned dodge as an admission that there are no "income laws"."

      You ask me to find "valor laws" in order to say there aren't any income laws? Wow, that was sure well planned. However, an example (evidence) of income laws has moved up to #2 on the first page of a simple google search for income laws. Probably because you've been clicking on it so many times. I guess finding proof of income laws is pretty easy if you just do a google search.

      "And I'll ask again, who (besides you) refers to the Bible with that phrase?"

      Everyone who believes Jesus is God.

      "Actually, I said this: "I've invited you multiple times to get back on track."

      Ok. I still think the minimum wage isn't too low. Perhaps some time in the future it will need to be adjusted again. Maybe all those sports stars can pay a higher rate to them with all the money they get paid since you've said their huge incomes have no effect on inflation. After all, the prime whine is that some CEO made a large bonus and some employees are still making minimum wage.

      "Since I don't believe that Jesus is God, you couldn't assume that I was referring to the entire Bible as the "Word of Jesus"."

      Like I said, it doesn't matter whether YOU believe it or not. It is true.

      Delete
    2. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to prove that 99% of people who earn minimum wage are adults. You said "most" are.
      YOU: "It would be nice if only teenagers held minimum-wage jobs, but that's not the reality of it. Most of those employees are adults."


      strawman argument: Straw man is a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
      Which you have been doing throughout this conversation. Would you prefer I call your discussion tactics "logical fallacy"? I will, if you want me to. Either way, that's what you have been doing with things like "valor laws" and "Incidentally, what makes you think that Jesus would side with a corporation that pays such high salaries to executives but shortchanges the workers?" as just 2 examples (evidence).

      Delete
    3. "You can call it a Ferrari for all I care. The true name is Mustang II."

      I never asserted anything about the "true name". Remember, I gave you multiple opportunities to switch the car to whatever you thought fit the price, so obviously I never gave a damn about the name from the very start. And if you don't care what I call it, then what have you been going on about all week?

      "So, unless you know something Ford doesn't then the name is and always will be Mustang II for those cars sold at that time."

      I know they listed it on their history of Mustangs. See, the brand includes "Mustang II", because otherwise it would be on a different page.

      "You ask me to find "valor laws" in order to say there aren't any income laws? Wow, that was sure well planned."

      Apparently, it was, since it left you without a valid response (look up "appeal to ridicule"). Can you find a "valor law"? Yes or no?

      "However, an example (evidence) of income laws has moved up to #2 on the first page of a simple google [sic] search for income laws."

      You can't claim something is an "example" until there's something to be an example of. If there was such a thing as an "income law", then there would be a definition that could be found somewhere. Your link doesn't include that. By the way, the phrase "an evidence" doesn't work, so putting it after "example" as if it's interchangeable is idiotic. The words aren't even synonyms, more importantly. If you want to say otherwise then make an actual argument.

      "Everyone who believes Jesus is God."

      Speaking of Google searches, "Word of Jesus" doesn't seem to return anything within the first sixty matches (at least) that is consistent with your usage. There must not be many people who believe that Jesus is God.

      "I still think the minimum wage isn't too low."

      How is that possible, if the minimum wage isn't designed for single adults?

      "After all, the prime whine is that some CEO made a large bonus and some employees are still making minimum wage."

      Strawman. The complaint isn't merely that some people are on minimum wage. It's much more accurate to describe the problem as CEOs making disproportionately large salaries and bonuses while the minimum wage is insufficient. Remember, also, that less money for executives allows for more pay for the lower-income workers. It's an expense which is divided up, like you would see displayed as a pie chart. It's not the same for, say, advertising contracts. The entire idea of hiring Tiger Woods (your example) is to increase sales and make that money back. An expense is not the same as an investment.

      Delete
    4. "Like I said, it doesn't matter whether YOU believe it or not. It is true."

      On the contrary, it matters quite a bit for the purposes of the discussion. I'm not beholden to your beliefs. I don't speak through your viewpoint. When I say something, you don't get to translate that to your philosophy and act as if the result is what I meant. That is arrogant and egocentric behavior. And that's if you aren't just being intellectually dishonest because you don't want to answer the question, of course. What really does not matter is whether you actually believe that Jesus is God. I don't care. It has nothing whatsoever to do with with question you're dodging, and your faith is not a shield for you to hide behind.

      Again: "Does Ecclesiastes qualify as the "speech of Jesus", or the "spoken word of Jesus as conveyed in the Bible", or whatever exact wording you're being a stickler for?" I also notice that you didn't provide your preferred wording, which suggests that you understood my phrasing just fine.

      "BTW, I'm still waiting for you to prove that 99% of people who earn minimum wage are adults. You said "most" are."

      I didn't say that "most" means "99%". And, since you can't find anything online: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/13/who-makes-minimum-wage/ And: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#7

      "Either way, that's what you have been doing with things like "valor laws" and "Incidentally, what makes you think that Jesus would side with a corporation that pays such high salaries to executives but shortchanges the workers?" as just 2 examples (evidence)."

      You think "valor laws" is "based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"? This should be fun. What are you saying, specifically...I'll say that again, for your short attention span, specifically...that the supposed "misrepresentation" is? Even better, what is wrong with asking you how you think the basis of your faith supports your views? If your beliefs are a significant part of who you are, then they must influence your opinions. So there's no way for you to claim that the question misrepresented you at all.

      But please, please try to argue with me about logic. That's even dumber than challenging me on the meanings of words. Your ability to sink deeper and deeper into the abyss of idiocy is absolutely fascinating, really.

      Delete
  8. "Strawman (sic)."

    So, trying to go back on-topic is a strawman? Hmm, perhaps YOU don't know what it means. Especially when you're trying to get me to explain "valor laws" in an off-topic discussion of "income laws". Good thing I brought an explanation of what that means. Perhaps you'll read it and learn something.

    "You think "valor laws" is "based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"? This should be fun."

    Yes, it should be fun trying to get you to explain that lie. Do you ever tell the truth while in an 'honest discussion'????????? I don't think so, either.

    "I didn't say that "most" means "99%"."

    You don't have to say it, you said "most". How many are there? Do you want to actually try to bring to proof of your claims this time? Or just change the subject as per you usual tactics? Considering you call discussing on-topic to be a "strawman".
    Since most means 51-99% and you never offered any real evidence of your claim then I have to assume you meant 99%. Is there another number I should use instead? Would you bring proof of that? I still don't think so. That isn't your style.

    "How is that possible, if the minimum wage isn't designed for single adults?"

    Because the 'cost of living' isn't high enough to dictate that. Even your example of cars proves that.

    "I never asserted anything about the "true name"."

    You did after I corrected your lie about how much a Mustang cost in 1975. Then you started saying even Ford calls it a Mustang, when IN FACT Ford calls it a Mustang II. But you've never been very good at facts. Facts and Brabantio are like oil and water, they repel each other.

    "Can you find a "valor law"? Yes or no?"

    Not if I don't look. Which I don't plan on doing since there is no reason to. Strawman. Look that word up some time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So, trying to go back on-topic is a strawman?"

      No, your misrepresentation of other people's views is a straw man argument. Nobody's complaining because "some employees are still making minimum wage".

      "Yes, it should be fun trying to get you to explain that lie."

      You just said it was a fallacy, and now you're shifting to "lie"? Try again: "What are you saying, specifically...I'll say that again, for your short attention span, specifically...that the supposed "misrepresentation" is?" If you want to claim that it's a straw man argument, you have to answer the question. The same thing applies if you want to claim some sort of "lie" as well.

      "You don't have to say it, you said "most". How many are there? Do you want to actually try to bring to proof of your claims this time?"

      If you're going to say that you're waiting for me to prove that 99% of minimum-wage employees are adults, then I would have had to specify that number. Otherwise, there's no way for you to say that you expect that evidence. Your comment clearly implies something that I didn't say, which is (as you then cited a definition for, amusingly) a straw man argument. And why didn't you open up the links from my previous post?

      "Or just change the subject as per you [sic] usual tactics?"

      Says the clown who's been avoiding the topic like the plague while babbling about cars and pizza. And again, my efforts to get you back on track are in print for everyone to see. You lose.

      "Since most means 51-99% and you never offered any real evidence of your claim then I have to assume you meant 99%."

      No, you really don't have to assume that. You can't establish any valid purpose for doing so.

      "Is there another number I should use instead?"

      No, there isn't. You probably should have asked something like that before you irresponsibly suggested that I had to prove "99%".

      "Because the 'cost of living' isn't high enough to dictate that."

      Not according to you. Let's review. Your claim was that the minimum wage wasn't designed to support single adults, citing your $2.10 an hour in 1975. Remember? Apparently that isn't its "purpose", according to your words. You also said:"The minimum wage is half the median income ... just like it was 40 years ago." On top of that, you yourself cited inflation as making purchases roughly four times more expensive than 1975 ("BTW, that equals $16K "adjusted for inflation").

      Keeping up, so far? Good. Now, if inflation quadruples prices, your cited minimum wage would be eight dollars (rounded down to adjust to your "16K" figure) in order to keep up. The actual minimum wage is seventy-five cents lower than that. So, since minimum wage was insufficient for single adults in 1975, it's even more so today. Obviously, the "median income" hasn't kept up with inflation, either. Who would have guessed?

      Delete
    2. "You did after I corrected your lie about how much a Mustang cost in 1975. Then you started saying even Ford calls it a Mustang, when IN FACT Ford calls it a Mustang II."

      You're very obviously lying: "No, it's still a Mustang. Note the title on the page I linked to. Also read the references to "Mustang" or "Mustangs" throughout, without a "II" attached. It's not a "FACT" that it has to be called "Mustang II", so sorry." Note that I said "Mustang II", but that it doesn't have to be called that. And: "They also referred to is as a Mustang. It's right at the top of the page, for the most obvious example." Note "also", which refers to "Mustang II". And: "It was "restyled", but still on their history of Mustangs. And they still listed "Mustang" when talking about the "Mustang II"." And: "A Mustang II is a type of Mustang. That's exactly why Ford lists it on their history of Mustangs." You're simply going to have to find something that shows that I said that the true name of the car was not "Mustang II", because my history shows otherwise.

      Further, here's you: "You can call it a Ferrari for all I care." Note the word "call". So, you already established that what one "calls" the car has nothing to do with the "true name", while your premise relies on the word "calls". That wasn't smart of you.

      By the way, for yet another English lesson, saying "a new $5,000 Mustang in 1975" doesn't assert the price of "a Mustang". The price modifies the car, not the other way around. Like the film phrase "five-dollar milkshake" doesn't insist that a milkshake costs that much. See, the price was the important part, since I was establishing numbers for comparison. That's why I told you that you could use a different car, which you chose not to do in order to whine more. It really makes you look rather petty and foolish to ramble on about a "lie" involving what's obviously an irrelevant detail that you could have changed to your liking. It doesn't even logically fit your own definition of "lie". What would the intent be? Good luck with that.

      "Not if I don't look. Which I don't plan on doing since there is no reason to."

      The reason would be to prove the validity of your "example". If you're not willing to do that, then your argument fails. That's your choice, so don't whine about it later.

      "Strawman."

      You just typed it the way you said was wrong, earlier. Regarding that, it's "[sic]", not "(sic)". Brackets, not parentheses. More importantly, you haven't explained how I'm supposedly misrepresenting you. I'm willing to bet good money that you can't substantiate your terminology, and you probably won't even make the effort.

      Delete
  9. "Nobody's complaining because "some employees are still making minimum wage"."

    Yes, YOU are by saying "most" of those getting it are adults. And you say it as if that's a problem. That means YOU are complaining about that.

    "If you're going to say that you're waiting for me to prove that 99% of minimum-wage employees are adults, then I would have had to specify that number."

    In other words, you are accepting the 99% number because you cannot bring any evidence to say otherwise. Ok, I will use that number from now on as the amount of "adults" you claim still get paid minimum wage. At least you clarified that for me.

    "No, you really don't have to assume that. You can't establish any valid purpose for doing so."

    I just did establish a reason: because you failed to bring ANY evidence to show another number works and you admit it is an acceptable number.

    "No, there isn't."

    Thank you. I will use your claim that 99% of people on minimum wage are adults from now on in response to all your whines about how bad life is in America.

    "Obviously, the "median income" hasn't kept up with inflation, either."

    So? That proves my point that minimum wage doesn't need to be raised at this time. Because it is still on par with the median wage.

    "Further, here's you:"

    Nothing to say on the Audi example? I thought you'd ignore that one, since you have such a hard time with names of cars. But to recap, you say a 75 Mustang II had the same as a 75 Mustang but have nothing to say when asked if an 94 Audi A8 has the same value as an 94 Audi A3. OBVIOUSLY, names on cars mean something.
    So, when you go to find the cost of an Audi A3 in 1994 you will consider the cost of the 1994 A8 to be acceptable? Even though the A3 was not produced in 1994, the name of the car is only one digit away from being an A8 then the A3 is the same thing and according to your intelligence the A3 had some sort of value in 1994 and can be used in all and any conversation about inflation or the cost of living increases.
    Thanks for making your stance so reasonable and honest.

    "The reason would be to prove the validity of your "example". "

    How would proving something unrelated to my example prove the validity of my example? Using that criteria, you need to answer for why an Audi A3 had value in 1994. If you don't then you cannot whine about cost of living increases or minimum wages being low in later posts. See how that works?

    "More importantly, you haven't explained how I'm supposedly misrepresenting you."

    Yes I have. Several times. Stop your continual lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "you say a 75 Mustang II had the same as a 75 Mustang"

      'value' should be added between 'same' and 'as'.

      Delete
    2. "Yes, YOU are by saying "most" of those getting it are adults."

      Funny, that's more specific than what you previously said. If "some employees" are on minimum wage, they could all be teenagers. Besides, I think there needs to be a minimum wage, so I'm not complaining about either the existence of it or that some adults are on it. The point is that the minimum wage is too low. Your phrasing asserted that people were complaining that the minimum wage hadn't been eliminated. Read it again if you need to.

      "In other words, you are accepting the 99% number because you cannot bring any evidence to say otherwise."

      No, I quite plainly said that you have no purpose for assuming a number. And since I gave you links to show demographics, it's not clear how you continue to say that I haven't provided evidence. Besides that, I said I "would have had" to have specified that number in order for you to ask it. So, your "other words" are completely inconsistent with the quote you were translating.

      "I just did establish a reason: because you failed to bring ANY evidence to show another number works and you admit it is an acceptable number. "

      When did you first ask for a number? And no, you can't possibly explain how what I said above suggests it's "acceptable". More importantly, even if I hadn't provided links, you still would have no valid reason to assume any number. If the specific number really matters, and you haven't explained why you think it does, then you can either do some research or ask for detailed information. You didn't do either.

      "I will use your claim that 99% of people on minimum wage are adults from now on in response to all your whines about how bad life is in America."

      Moron, saying that there's no other number that you should assume is perfectly consistent with saying that you can't assume any number. But, if you want to lie, only your claimed sense of morality can prevent that.

      "So? That proves my point that minimum wage doesn't need to be raised at this time. Because it is still on par with the median wage."

      Who cares if it's on par with the median wage if it's not keeping up with inflation? If the median wage doesn't raise in the next twenty years, do you think that the minimum wage should stay where it is? Just as an example to prove the point, so you don't go off on another week-long bender.

      "Nothing to say on the Audi example?"

      I don't see how the comparison is supposed to work, since the Mustang II isn't part of such a distinct series. Where's your comment on Jesus's lack of appearance in Ecclesiastes? Or the destruction of your claim that I asserted the "true name" as a 1975 "Mustang"? If you want to talk about what's ignored, I'll win that battle.

      Delete
  10. "But to recap, you say a 75 Mustang II had the same [sic] as a 75 Mustang but have nothing to say when asked if an 94 Audi A8 has the same value as an 94 Audi A3. OBVIOUSLY, names on cars mean something."

    You're lying again. I didn't say that a 1975 Mustang II had the same (fill in your blank) as a 1975 Mustang. I never suggested that they're two different things, so there's no comparison to be made. Remember, you yourself cited "your Mustang II" in your original response, so you know that already. You also didn't ask about the "value" of any Audi car, just so you're aware.

    If the name really means something, then the standard for using that name should go well beyond the scope of people who bought or saw the cars 39 years ago. But that's the standard you went with. And the name certainly doesn't mean anything when the car is simply used as an example to compare numbers. Again, if I was writing an essay on Mustangs, I'd appreciate your input. Here, you're just being a jackass. See the difference?

    "How would proving something unrelated to my example prove the validity of my example?"

    Look up "begging the question". It's not unrelated to your example. If you made the effort to respond to the point, instead of hiding in your shell, you'd see exactly how it's related.

    "Using that criteria, you need to answer for why an Audi A3 had value in 1994. If you don't then you cannot whine about cost of living increases or minimum wages being low in later posts."

    Wrong, because the comparison was simply to demonstrate inflation regarding your idiotic claim that a $5 two-pizza deal in 1982 was a better value than a $5 pizza today. You yourself multiplied costs by four to account for inflation from 1975 to modern times, so I don't have to answer your new question about the costs of Audi vehicles in order to make any argument at any point in time. You're trying to hinge everything on a meaningless detail, which isn't going to work for you.

    "Yes I have. Several times."

    Actually, you've never shown that. In this context, specifically, you haven't explained how "valor laws" misrepresented you. Either you forgot the context, or you're being intellectually dishonest. Or, if you're really claiming that you made that explanation regarding "valor laws", you're outright lying again. In any event, fix yourself and try again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Funny, that's more specific than what you previously said. If "some employees" are on minimum wage, they could all be teenagers"

    Irrelevant, since you said "most" and that is what I'm commenting on.

    "Besides, I think there needs to be a minimum wage, so I'm not complaining about either the existence of it or that some adults are on it."

    Didn't you just tell me that my beliefs have no place in this kind of discussion? Besides you said MOST not SOME. Make up your mind what you "think".

    " Your phrasing asserted that people were complaining that the minimum wage hadn't been eliminated. Read it again if you need to."

    I read it again. Explain how so.

    "Who cares if it's on par with the median wage if it's not keeping up with inflation?"

    Are you now saying that all people should automatically get raises when the minimum wage is increased? That seems different than your initial claim.

    "I don't see how the comparison is supposed to work, since the Mustang II isn't part of such a distinct series."

    Ok, so you saying that an A8 is the same as an A3. Fine, I'll accept your opinion on that. And, use that opinion in many future posts.

    " I didn't say that a 1975 Mustang II had the same (fill in your blank) as a 1975 Mustang."

    You saw the correction. Don't act as if it wasn't there.

    I think I'll wait for an intelligent poster to respond to any statements made, from here on out. Since you have proven yourself over and over again to be a liar and dishonest when conversing. You can call it "hiding in a shell" if you want but there is no reason to respond to a liar who continues to lie and defend those lies.
    You lose yet another argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Irrelevant, since you said "most" and that is what I'm commenting on."

      The point would obviously be that you didn't make that clear, so that's perfectly relevant.

      "Didn't you just tell me that my beliefs have no place in this kind of discussion?"

      No, I said it doesn't matter whether you believe Jesus is God or not.

      "Besides you said MOST not SOME."

      Wow. I'm almost tempted to let you wallow in your stupidity on that one. Most of the people making minimum wage are adults. That's regarding those on minimum wage. At the same time, some adults are on minimum wage. That's regarding all adults. Those are two different groups, of much different sizes.

      "Explain how so."

      You must have missed the "some employees are still making minimum wage" part. "Still" as opposed to what? As long as people are making minimum wage, some employees will still be doing so.

      "Are you now saying that all people should automatically get raises when the minimum wage is increased?"

      No, moron. I'm saying that the proportional relationship between the two wages doesn't automatically make the lower wage acceptable.

      "That seems different than your initial claim."

      That's because it didn't come from me.

      "Ok, so you saying that an A8 is the same as an A3."

      No, I'm saying I don't see how your comparison applies. Which would mean that I'm not making any comment on Audi vehicles.

      "You saw the correction. Don't act as if it wasn't there."

      I saw it after I posted, because I replied to your first post. I'll also advise you to change your tone, since you've repeatedly ignored the links I provided so you can claim that I haven't brought any evidence to show how most minimum-wage employees are adults. You don't tell me not to "act" as if your correction wasn't there when you have no reason to believe that I saw it before I posted.

      "You can call it "hiding in a shell" if you want but there is no reason to respond to a liar who continues to lie and defend those lies."

      When you lack the courage to face an argument, I will call it that. Meanwhile, I dare you to substantiate your claim that my "valor laws" comment misrepresented you, or anything else you've run away from. If you say it, back it up. You can't claim victory by making yet more hollow cries of "liar".

      So, if you know you can't make a valid argument, by all means stop posting. Whatever you tell yourself to stop the tears from pooling on your pillow at night is entirely up to you.

      Delete
  12. "I saw it after I posted, because I replied to your first post."

    Still don't know how to use a computer, eh?

    "So, if you know you can't make a valid argument, by all means stop posting. "

    I have no intention to stop posting. I will just stop posting to lying people like you. I'm always happy to comment to anyone who wishes to hear my opinion. Eddie says "Come on in, let's argue!" but even he relies on lying people like you to stand up FOR him. When there is a post, that isn't posted by a proven unrepentant liar (that you are), I will respond to it, if there is something to respond to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Still don't know how to use a computer, eh?"

      You're begging the question, again. What would this have to do with properly using a computer? You corrected yourself twenty minutes after you posted, and I'd already started to reply. I notice that you don't address what I said about the links that you pretended that I didn't post. What's your excuse there, that you still don't know how to open a link? Even your childish, substance-free replies backfire on you.

      "I will just stop posting to lying people like you."

      You haven't shown any lies, even when asked to do so. But again, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

      "I'm always happy to comment to anyone who wishes to hear my opinion."

      That's an odd claim, because I've asked you to clarify your opinion, and then you didn't talk about it any longer. What you seem to really want is to spout your irrational, hateful screeds without rebuttal. As soon as your bullshit is challenged, you're out of your comfort zone. If you can find someone who will coddle you and validate your opinion just so you don't throw a tantrum, go for it.

      I couldn't care less whether you respond to me or not. When you make ludicrous arguments, I'll still point out how they're flawed. So, you might as well not post, since my arguments will stand either way, and that way you don't make it worse for yourself by demonstrating your utter lack of morals, propriety and self-control.

      I'd be surprised if you had the sense or ability to stop digging your hole, but I won't be disappointed either way.

      Delete
  13. Eddie? I find it odd that you have no comment on my questioning you about your whine that McDonalds is paying so many minimum wage jobs while giving it's CEO a $14M bonus. I don't see anything in your article (or whine) about Nike Inc..
    Do you think it is fair that they paid Tiger Woods $50M endorsement contract (a few years ago) while they operated 'sweatshops' in China, S Korea, VietNam (and other countries)? Do you think those employees got paid MINIMUM WAGE? Did you also know that Nike moved their factories from country to country seeking the lower paid employees? No, I guess you didn't know that.

    I just find it odd that you complain about an American company that pays a fair wage for jobs done, yet you are completely silent about companies that actually move their manufacturing plants OUT of America just so they can pay less than what is fair compensation. And then continue to move their factories to other countries as the employees seek increased rights/pay.

    I had mentioned that to another poster, but that person failed to grasp what was being said.

    Considering you invite people to "argue" on your site, I had assumed that meant you would participate, too. I guess you don't feel any importance of defending your misguided whines about McDonalds paying fair wages for work done while ignoring Nike paying thousands of people minimal pay while having them work in dangerous conditions as Nike Inc. doles out Millions of $$$ to sports stars.
    I guess sport star wages have nothing to do with inflation or cost of living increases, only the bonus's that CEO's make. That would seem to be your point as you ignore that actual danger that Nike employees face day-in and day-out while they pay a rich guy $50 million more to help make those poor employees work harder and cheaper.

    Eddie, I'm glad to see you still aren't afraid of confronting me on your blog site. Since you've replied to a post of mine 3-4 times in the past 6 months. Perhaps you are afraid to answer to questions I bring up. Are you afraid of me constantly pointing out that "facts" you bring are actually "lies"? Questions like: Isn't Wal-Mart the top employer of minimum wage jobs? And, NOT McDonalds? Isn't Yum! Brands Inc (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC) second in that list? Isn't it a fact that McDonalds is 3rd or even lower? Can you bring some evidence to prove your statement of fact that "(such as McDonald's - the single largest employer of minimum wage workers) "? Because the facts that I see show something different:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/low-wage-workers-_n_1687271.html
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-companies-with-the-most-low-wage-workers-2013-2
    http://nelp.3cdn.net/24befb45b36b626a7a_v2m6iirxb.pdf

    I would hate to have to point out that you're using false information in your whines about whatever. You DO know that facts are easy to find in the current age of the computer and internet, right? Well, the facts as you bring them are (not) surprisingly inaccurate.

    I also noticed that Nike Inc. did not make that list of companies with employees in America. They employ 38,000 people, but have moved their manufacturing plants to 6 different continents in efforts to save money by paying less for their workers.

    Thanks for keeping your complaints about minimum wage employees REAL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I just find it odd that you complain about an American company that pays a fair wage for jobs done, yet you are completely silent about companies that actually move their manufacturing plants OUT of America just so they can pay less than what is fair compensation. And then continue to move their factories to other countries as the employees seek increased rights/pay...I had mentioned that to another poster, but that person failed to grasp what was being said."

      You didn't mention anything about factories getting moved to other countries. Since you're referencing me, I'm obligated to correct you. However, if you had brought that up, I would have pointed out that it's a different issue than the minimum wage, because sweatshop workers aren't affected by it. That's exactly why companies set up factories in other countries, which is suggested by your own words ("from country to country seeking the lower paid employees"). So I would have asked why you think this is supposed to be mentioned in a post which focuses on the minimum wage.

      I would also have pointed out that you don't have to wonder too much about someone's thoughts on sweatshop labor when they want the minimum wage to be raised. That would pretty clearly indicate disapproval of profiting from low wages, never mind the working conditions and low age limit for employment.

      Still, since it's so easy to find things on the internet:
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2010/07/political-schools-of-thought.html
      And:
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2010/04/immigration-reform.html ("Which is funny, because it seems that this is about the only argument the Right EVER makes in favor of American Labor. Remember: Thea re the people who hate union, fight minimum age increase, outsource jobs to china, put profit ahead of safety (Massey, I'm looking at YOU!)"

      I sincerely hope this addresses all the concerns that you imagined that you had expressed to me.

      Delete
    2. To be fair, (although most of the reason that I do this is so you don't pretend that I misrepresented your spelling or grammar when quoting you), Eddie's quote again: "Which is funny, because it seems that this is about the only argument the Right EVER makes in favor of American Labor. Remember: Thea re [sic] the people who hate union [sic], fight minimum age [sic] increase, outsource jobs to china [sic], put profit ahead of safety (Massey, I'm looking at YOU!)"

      Delete
  14. "I sincerely hope this addresses all the concerns that you imagined that you had expressed to me."

    I don't believe I'm talking to you. I specifically said "Eddie" at the start of my comment. Are you claiming to be Eddie, now? Is this another way of getting your lies involved in this discussion? It must be since you (again) missed the crux of the point: That McDonalds isn't the company employing the most minimum wage employees. Not even second. Eddie said they were #1 AS FACT. He lied and you ignored that lie. Then you ignore the FACT that I brought up Nike and you think they have nothing to do with high cost of living and low wages. I call bull shit on you. Continue to lie all you want.
    FYI, when I address EDDIE, I don't expect a proven habitual liar to defend HIS statements.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Is this another way of getting your lies involved in this discussion? It must be since you (again) missed the crux of the point: That McDonalds [sic] isn't the company employing the most minimum wage employees. Not even second. Eddie said they were #1 AS FACT. He lied and you ignored that lie."

    Well, make up your mind. Either you're not talking to me, or you expect me to answer for Eddie. I didn't miss the "crux" of anything, I responded to the part that you clearly directed at me. McDonald's was not involved with that.

    But since you are now asking me to comment, I'll first point out that your numbers seem to be the total workforce, not the number or minimum-wage employees. I don't know where his citation came from, but you yourself said "the company employing the most minimum wage employees", which isn't the same as the largest company which employees minimum-wage employees. Secondly, I wonder why you think that something from March 2012 is "outdated", but July 2012 is not. The dividing line is really hidden in that 4-month span? Finally, if Eddie is actually wrong on that, I'm sure he'll appreciate the correction. It doesn't alter his argument in the slightest, of course, since nothing hinges on whether McDonald's hires the most minimum-wage employees or not. Contrast that to your claim that "The minimum wage is half the median income ... just like it was 40 years ago." That actually affects your point, since you're using the median income as the standard on which to gauge the fairness of the minimum wage. Now, read: "A full-time worker (40 hours a week) in the U.S. making minimum wage earns only $15,080 a year. For some context, median individual earnings are $40,404 a year (BLS), while the U.S. poverty level is $23,550 (HHS)." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-17/the-minimum-wage-and-mcdonald-s-welfare.html). Obviously, fifteen is not even close to half of forty. And if what Eddie said is a "lie", then how did you not lie? If facts are so easy to find for you, you have no excuse for falsely claiming that the median income was approximately $30K.

    "Then you ignore the FACT that I brought up Nike and you think they have nothing to do with high cost of living and low wages. I call bull shit on you."

    You never showed how they had anything to do with the high cost of living, even when I asked you to. Also, we never discussed their "low wages", especially when you take that phrase outside of the topic of the minimum wage.

    "FYI, when I address EDDIE, I don't expect a proven habitual liar to defend HIS statements."

    So, again, did you expect me to comment on McDonald's, or not? You keep switching back and forth.

    As I noted before, you said this: "I had mentioned that to another poster, but that person failed to grasp what was being said." That was not true. You did not bring up outsourcing in any way, at any time. Note that I didn't call it a "lie" (as you do when I point out the fact that single quotes are "quotes", just as one of many humorous examples), but I allowed for you to have thought that you had really specified that earlier. And, since you clearly thought that you had a point to make, I addressed it. Why would I not do that, when you're complaining that I didn't respond to it earlier? You're going to complain that I didn't "grasp" your point, but then you don't want a response anyway? That would be highly irrational of you.

    If you don't want me to comment, don't make false statements about how I didn't address your arguments. That gives me every right to not only correct you, but to make the response you're claiming to have wanted. Do you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "So, again, did you expect me to comment on McDonald's, or not?"

    Yes, Eddie, I expect you to answer to the lie you're promoting that McDonalds is the #1 employer of minimum wage employees. Will you do that, Eddie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not Eddie. I responded to your false assertion about me, and you have no legitimate complaint about that.

      Delete
  17. "I'm not Eddie."

    Sure you're not. That's why you keep replying to comments directed to Eddie? So, are you going to correct your lie about McDonalds being the #1 employer of minimum wage employees or not, Eddie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You asked me to comment on Eddie's "lie": "He lied and you ignored that lie." Apparently, you're going to criticize me for not responding, then criticize me for responding as well. Sounds like you're going to cry no matter what.

      Also, when you quote me, I'm going to comment, whether you're claiming to be directing your post to Eddie or not. When you say something untrue, I'm going to correct you. Deal with it.

      Delete
    2. By the way, I'll be in the field this week, and connectivity is uncertain. So if you keep talking to me, while pretending you're talking to someone else or not, don't get fidgety just because you don't hear from me right away. I know you get on edge after half a day.

      Delete
    3. "You asked me to comment on Eddie's "lie": "He lied and you ignored that lie." "

      Another typical lie of yours. I asked you nothing except are you Eddie now. And, since you continue to respond to comments directed at Eddie, it is safe to assume you are Eddie. Figures, because he lies as much as you do. Every one of the articles you (Eddie) come out with has a lie in it. You (Eddie) can't seem to discuss honestly even if it directed at your fellow liberals.

      "Also, when you quote me, I'm going to comment, whether you're claiming to be directing your post to Eddie or not. When you say something untrue, I'm going to correct you. "

      When I quote you and direct it at Eddie, of course I would expect Eddie (you) to reply. If you're going to continue to whine about who you really are (through the anonymity of the internet) then answer the question at hand that I am directing at Eddie (you): Are you going to correct your lie about McDonalds being the top employer of minimum wage employees? Because if you lie about that, then you have probably lied about the rest of what you say in your article, Eddie. And since your alter-ego brabantio consistently lies during his (your) comments, then it is safe to assume Eddie is you and you are Eddie.

      "By the way, I'll be in the field this week, and connectivity is uncertain."

      That's fine, Eddie. I don't expect you to reply anyway. So, you run away now and enjoy playing in the woods or fields, wherever you 'say' you're going. I fully understand you wanting to run away after I request that you correct your lie about McDonalds. Making your entire article a farce.
      You do the same thing every time I point out the lies you bring in your articles. So, you just run away and ignore a request for you to be accountable for your statements.
      And, don't worry Eddie, I won't get fidgety. I'm used to you running away when you are called on your lies.

      Go figure ... a liberal who refuses to be accountable for their actions. Oh, yeah ... you and Eddie are the same person. There aint' no doubt about that. You whine the same way and you lie the same way. One mis-spells on purpose the other corrects the tiniest grammar error. Obvious alter-ego actions.

      Delete
    4. "I asked you nothing except are you Eddie now."

      Then I didn't ignore anything, like you said. See, either you think that you told me that you wanted that input, in which case you could say that I ignored it, or you didn't ask me for it, which would mean that I didn't ignore it. Because you can't very well criticize me for not saying something you never wanted to hear. Yet another claim of "lie" goes up in smoke.

      "When I quote you and direct it at Eddie, of course I would expect Eddie (you) to reply."

      When you quote me, you can expect me to reply. It doesn't matter what name you tack on, pretending that you're talking to that person.

      "If you're going to continue to whine about who you really are (through the anonymity of the internet) then answer the question at hand that I am directing at Eddie (you): Are you going to correct your lie about McDonalds [sic] being the top employer of minimum wage employees?"

      Correcting you is not whining. Also notice that your phrasing makes no sense, because if I'm going to point out that I'm not Eddie, then I obviously am not the one you're directing that question to.

      "And since your alter-ego brabantio [sic] consistently lies during his (your) comments, then it is safe to assume Eddie is you and you are Eddie."

      You haven't shown any lies, only your misuse of that term. For instance, you say that pointing out that your use of single quotes is still "quotes" is a "lie", when it's clearly objective fact. Also, you switched subjects in mid-sentence. You started off talking to Eddie ("your alter-ego brabantio [sic]"), then changed over to me ("it is safe to assume Eddie is you and you are Eddie"). Unless you came to the brilliant conclusion that Eddie is Eddie, of course.

      Delete
    5. "So, you run away now and enjoy playing in the woods or fields, wherever you 'say' you're going."

      Why is "say" in quotes? As if I didn't say I was going to the field? Bizarre. More importantly, I love how you claim to have been in the Army, but you don't understand the most basic concepts involved with it. And you also don't have any problem with mocking the core value of duty, which suggests that either you never actually served, or you were a sack of shit as a soldier.

      "Making your entire article a farce."

      Nothing hinges on whether McDonald's is number one or number three in minimum-wage employment, moron. Besides that, Eddie linked to the other facts in his article, so your assertion that he "probably" lied about everything else in the article is laughable. And, of course, if you're going to use one thing to judge everything on, then everything you say is probably a lie because you said that the median income was lower than it actually is. So, you don't have any standing to criticize Eddie, even if what he said isn't true.

      "So, you just run away and ignore a request for you to be accountable for your statements."

      That's hilarious, coming from the clown who says "get over it" when asked to explain how he manufactured a quote and attributed it to me. And you haven't addressed your debunked claim about the median income, either. When you make yourself accountable, you can ask Eddie for that. Until then, you're a flaming hypocrite.

      "One mis-spells on purpose the other corrects the tiniest grammar error. Obvious alter-ego actions."

      What a dazzling theory (sarcasm). No, seriously, having completely different styles of writing isn't an indicator for your claim. Just the opposite, in fact. Remember, also, that if you're going to assert any alter-egos here based on such weak reasoning, the obvious parallels between you and "anonymous" prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are that poster. So, again, you have no standing to make any criticisms. Even on top of that, you're whining about something that you can't prove. You don't allow that, so apparently you're done making that claim.

      Delete
    6. Nothing hinges on whether McDonald's is number one or number three in minimum-wage employment, moron.

      The troll doesn't understand the importance of being able to prove FACTS as they are claimed. Since Eddie made a claim of fact, the least he could do is prove it when it is shown that his FACTS are lies. But, the troll thinks it is OK to lie so therefore, the mis-information is completely acceptable. Since the troll considers truth to be "nothing" then it is understandable that the troll would support lying.
      I would assume the troll would call any/every right-winger who made that kind of glaring error a liar. I know he/she calls me a liar even when I don't lie, but that troll will defend a lie when a fellow liberal makes it.
      I've never heard of a troll who isn't a hypocrite, too. That seems to prove that point.

      Delete
    7. "The troll doesn't understand the importance of being able to prove FACTS as they are claimed."

      You certainly don't. At last, you said something rational.

      "Since Eddie made a claim of fact, the least he could do is prove it when it is shown that his FACTS are lies."

      Then prove your assertion of fact regarding the median income.

      "Since the troll considers truth to be "nothing" then it is understandable that the troll would support lying."

      I never applied "nothing" to "truth". Here's what I said, earlier: "Finally, if Eddie is actually wrong on that, I'm sure he'll appreciate the correction. It doesn't alter his argument in the slightest, of course, since nothing hinges on whether McDonald's hires the most minimum-wage employees or not.

      All you're doing is highlighting the difference between two errors, at best. Eddie's argument remains the same whether McDonald's is at number one or number three on that list. For you, however, you claimed that the minimum wage is currently half of the median income, which is significant to your argument.

      "I know he/she calls me a liar even when I don't lie, but that troll will defend a lie when a fellow liberal makes it."

      How did I "defend" anything? Be specific. Also, feel free to provide any example of being called a "liar" when I didn't prove your lie, so I can correct you.

      "I've never heard of a troll who isn't a hypocrite, too."

      Like demanding Eddie be accountable for what he said about McDonald's, while you have no comment on your claim of fact regarding the median income.

      Delete