Jonathan Ball wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...


jps wrote:



In article et,
says...




Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.


Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace.

Wal-Mart doesn't screw anyone. They offer employment,
and people voluntarily take it.


Because, unless they want to live on welfare and food stamps, there are
few other choices.

Read this and learn something...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec13.html

You'll see a quote from your hallowed Employment Policy Institute about
the fact that jobs being created are "low quality."

Is it better to have a low quality job, or no job at
all, asswipe?


Surely you'll find out

I have always known.

I'm sure you know a lot about low-quality jobs. Someday you'll graduate
from clerking at 7-11 to swabbing out the heads at Wal-Mart.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Harry Krause wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:


Jonathan Ball wrote:



jps wrote:


In article . net,
says...



jps wrote:




In article et,
says...





Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.


Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace.

Wal-Mart doesn't screw anyone. They offer employment,
and people voluntarily take it.


Because, unless they want to live on welfare and food stamps, there are
few other choices.

Read this and learn something...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec13.html

You'll see a quote from your hallowed Employment Policy Institute about
the fact that jobs being created are "low quality."

Is it better to have a low quality job, or no job at
all, asswipe?


Surely you'll find out

I have always known.


I'm sure you know a lot about low-quality jobs.

No, I know about $100,000+ jobs. I hold one.

jps wrote in message . ..
In article . net,
says...
jps wrote:

In article ,
says...


Don't use logic on JPS. It just confuses him.
LZ


Giggle all you want LZ, I think we need a national health policy that
looks after people in states that would be as backwards as possible
given the chance.

Oh, just another garden-variety communist.

Another elitist pig who thinks health should be the exclusive domain of
those who can afford it.

Another logically challeneged person who equates not giving a freebie
to someone with denying it to him.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:


Jonathan Ball wrote:



jps wrote:


In article . net,
says...



jps wrote:




In article et,
says...





Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.


Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace.

Wal-Mart doesn't screw anyone. They offer employment,
and people voluntarily take it.


Because, unless they want to live on welfare and food stamps, there are
few other choices.

Read this and learn something...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec13.html

You'll see a quote from your hallowed Employment Policy Institute about
the fact that jobs being created are "low quality."

Is it better to have a low quality job, or no job at
all, asswipe?


Surely you'll find out

I have always known.


I'm sure you know a lot about low-quality jobs.

No, I know about $100,000+ jobs. I hold one.


So, you work 10 shifts at 7-11. BFD.

--
Email sent to is never read.

jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Don't use logic on JPS. It just confuses him.
LZ

Giggle all you want LZ, I think we need a national health policy that
looks after people in states that would be as backwards as possible
given the chance.


If that's they way they built it, who are you to judge them?


That's one of the biggest problems with liberals. They're way too
presumptuous about what's "good" for other people, and who should pay
for it.

Dave

jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Sounds to me like you are taking power from the people and shipping it
to Washington.

Jerk,

Individual states would be welcome to exceed Federal standards if their
elected officials saw fit to pass legislation supporting such policies.

A Federal standard would ensure that, under no circumstances would
people be treated at less than a minimum standard.

So perhaps you can explain how that's not giving people power?


It's not giving the "people" power. It's giving government's power.

Dave

jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...
jps wrote:

In article ,
says...


Don't use logic on JPS. It just confuses him.
LZ


Giggle all you want LZ, I think we need a national health policy that
looks after people in states that would be as backwards as possible
given the chance.

Oh, just another garden-variety communist.

Another elitist pig who thinks health should be the exclusive domain of
those who can afford it.


We would ALL be able to afford it, if we didn't try to stem the problem
by instituting insurance subsidies into the demand side of what was a
free market business.

Your kind of solution is why the problem is as big as it is now.

Dave

Mark Neglay wrote:
jps wrote in message . ..

In article . net,
says...

jps wrote:


In article ,
says...



Don't use logic on JPS. It just confuses him.
LZ


Giggle all you want LZ, I think we need a national health policy that
looks after people in states that would be as backwards as possible
given the chance.

Oh, just another garden-variety communist.

Another elitist pig who thinks health should be the exclusive domain of
those who can afford it.


Another logically challeneged person who equates not giving a freebie
to someone with denying it to him.

Exactly so!

The other week, two talk radio hosts who played a big
role in the recall of Gray Davis, and who also were
playing a big role in getting an initiative on the
ballot to get rid of the extortionate car tax, had a
comment from some leftwing bleeding heart about a
provision in some part of the California tax code that
when there was a reduction in the rate of the car tax,
welfare recipients *also* were supposed to get some
kind of "refund". This, of course, makes clear how the
tyrants - the governors - view taxes: not as money
that we give to them to spend for legitimate public
purpose, but rather as THEIR money that they dole out
as they see fit.

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Sounds to me like you are taking power from the people and shipping it
to Washington.

Jerk,

Individual states would be welcome to exceed Federal standards if their
elected officials saw fit to pass legislation supporting such policies.

A Federal standard would ensure that, under no circumstances would
people be treated at less than a minimum standard.

So perhaps you can explain how that's not giving people power?


It's not giving the "people" power. It's giving government's power.

Dave


By setting a minimum standard of regard for human beings? I can't
imagine any reasoning that'd convince me that the power we give the
government to make this mandate wouldn't be worth it.

It's not taking power away from people, it's ensuring their well-being.

Give it a shot if you must Dave but I think you'd be better off moving
onto an argument that's defensible.

jps

In article ,
says...
jps wrote in message . ..
In article . net,
says...
jps wrote:

In article ,
says...


Don't use logic on JPS. It just confuses him.
LZ


Giggle all you want LZ, I think we need a national health policy that
looks after people in states that would be as backwards as possible
given the chance.

Oh, just another garden-variety communist.

Another elitist pig who thinks health should be the exclusive domain of
those who can afford it.

Another logically challeneged person who equates not giving a freebie
to someone with denying it to him.

Logic? A minimum standard for health in our country is illogical?
Caring for the infirmed is "giving a freebie?"

I suppose those who cannot care for themselves should just whither and
die? Can we send them to your neighborhood? Where would you like them
to go.

Another pig who thinks health is the exclusive domain of those who can
afford it.