|
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
So it's your assertion then that people who agree with a certain
position, are somehow "hateful"? Dave You already know the answer, Dave. It depends on the position. Agreeing with: "I think the war in Iraq makes good strategic sense for the United States because it will allow us to establish a base in the mid east and improve the reliability of our oil supply" is conservative, but not hateful. Agreeing with: "The liberals in this country wake up every morning hoping that thousands of innocent Americans will be killed in a terrorist strike just to make the Bush administration look bad" is hateful and divisive. Surely you can see the difference. Can't you? |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
It is not hateful to draw conclusions. That you guys on the left try
to taint such conclusions by demonizing them as hate (and therefore invalid) is the point. Only extreme idiots ordinarily substitute stereotyping for individual observation. As you're not an extreme idiot, I'm genuinely surprised you would lump *all* of any group into a single category. Sean Hannity put it best one day when he made the statement: "I don't hate liberals. I have plenty of liberal friends. I play golf with them, I go to dinner with them. I just don't want them in power." Oh, puhleeeeeeeeeeeze. We could spend the next year listing hateful things SH has said about liberals. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
I don't deal in absolutes.
You were defending those who do, "as long as they have evidence to back them up" I listen to Hannity fairly regularly, as he's on during my afternoon drive time. He strongly refutes liberal policies, but he have never made a statement of a personal nature that could be construed as "hate". Horse puckey. I have listened to him. I'll keep track of some of his next few *zingers* and ask for your opinion soon. I wrote: It's the same group of techniques that over the years have rallied the gullible against "******s" "kikes" "spics" and what not. Dave wrote: There you go again, attempting to demonize the messengers and the message by comparing similar techniques that were used to promote ideals in the past which are now generally regarded as "bad". Good grief. What prompted that moment of frank honesty? At least you do admit the techniques are indeed (at least) "similar". Where there is smoke there is fire. Even if the Non_scholarly" do not completely understand the nuances of many liberal ideas, they do understand the final outcome. Anything which takes away from their choices, and their financial sovereignty is a bad thing. Lot of choice these days in the average police state? Lot of financial sovereignty when the government has a $25,000 mortgage on the future earnings of every American, (*plus* future taxation for upcoming expenses)? |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:10:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:14:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I don't think that mainstream America is ready for a liberal. Liberals downplay those values and morals that most of the heartland live by. Nah....that's not true. Liberals don't try to legislate morals, or preach about them. We get in your face about some stuff, but not about other stuff. The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is which areas they acknowledge as "None of anybody's business". It's 100% based on the opinions of human beings, not natural law or deities. Therefore, it's fair play to meddle until the next person is elected. If I were elected, there'd be a law saying that if your car leaks oil all over parking lots and you don't fix it within 30 days of getting a ticket, someone comes to your house and breaks your kneecaps, and all five fingers on one hand. But that's just me. My law would be that you'd be legally allowed to shoot the fool that came to your house to break your kneecaps. Dave I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching fire, or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick. Is that what you want for your kids? Nope, but I'm not cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to the environment. I'm not an alarmist who wants to redefine every power enthusiast's lifestyle by claiming that these things are more responsible for pollution than agricultural or industrial sources. I'm not in favor of rules which unnecessarily burden those who can least afford it. And I don't think the government (And by extension the taxpayers) should be forced to "fix" that problem by subsidizing the poor. Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:09:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:33:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: That law's been on the books in Germany for a long time! John H I like it! Seriously....it washes into the storm drains and ends up in MY fishing water. My mechanic says 99% of the leakers he sees need a $1.50 washer around the oil pan drain plug. But you fail to consider the poor people, who routinely drive 20 year old cars, who can't afford to replace the front main seal in the engine, or the valve cover gaskets. See, this is what I mean about the duplicity of the left. You guys become single focussed when you adopt a cause. But you fail to consider the interactivity that results when your "vision" is applied in practice. What is more important to you? Helping the poor stay afloat, or being cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to little environmental issues? Dave, what is it with you today? Are you on cold medication or something? I said my mechanic finds that 99% of leakers need a washer that costs as much as one and a half lottery tickets. I don't believe that. Every car that I've ever owned or worked on (which has been many) which leaked, did so through aging seals or gaskets. I have NEVER had a leaky oil drain plug, and I'd be quite surprised that they are that big of an issue. Even if there were no washer on the plug, the amount of oil seepage around the (tight) threads of the plug would amount to what, a drop or two a week? Even low-income people often change their oil. Many have no other economical choice. The fault lies with the mechanics who don't give a damn about the quality of their work. Joe the mechanic puts a new washer on every car, at every oil change. I put 23,000 miles a year on my Geo. I change my oil every 3500 miles. I've had the car for 4 years now. You figure out how many times I've changed it. I've NEVER changed the washer on the plug, and it doesn't leak a drop. I fully understand that some cars have much more serious problems, and that people sometimes can't afford the repairs. I was in that situation at one point in my life. Then you should be empathetic with those who still are. But if you read what I wrote, it's clear that a nasty automotive problem could be virtually eliminated for next to nothing. And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue. Want another example? Like many astute guys, I can tell when someone's tires are low on air. So, at my office or apartment, if I have a pen & paper handy, I'll stick a note on someone's windshield saying something like "Hey! Your tires are REALLY low on air. Get to the pump before you get hurt". Why? It snows here. For tires that need 32 psi, being 5 pounds low can make them behave as if they were bald. Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide to go. But you bring up a good related point and that is that you can lose up to 2 MPG from severely under inflated tires. You guys who like to compute and extrapolate statistics can really appreciate the significance of keeping tires inflated. I don't want to see people get hurt. Sometimes, someone sticks the note on the front door of the apt entrance, or the tenant directory of the office building saying "Thanks to whomever - they were down to 18 pounds!" What does this achieve? /For either free, or 50 cents (the cost of some air pumps), maybe someone didn't get into an accident. I appreciate your sense of compassion, but any responsible driver should check their tires, at least visually, every time they go out. You should have to be their "Guardian Angel". Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching fire, or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick. Is that what you want for your kids? Nope, but I'm not cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to the environment. I'm not an alarmist who wants to redefine every power enthusiast's lifestyle by claiming that these things are more responsible for pollution than agricultural or industrial sources. I'm not in favor of rules which unnecessarily burden those who can least afford it. And I don't think the government (And by extension the taxpayers) should be forced to "fix" that problem by subsidizing the poor. Dave You're spewing again, Dave. Because you said that you read so many different information sources, surely you know that vast amounts of contamination can be eliminated by people like us, for a buck or two a year. Or, by simply doing something differently, something that costs absolutely zip. You're smart. You read all sorts of stuff. You know these things. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 1) You have a short memory. We've discussed this. You are not permitted to use the word "socialism" unless you understand it. You do not understand it. If you disagree with me, please explain socialism and how it applies to this discussion. I could give you the dictionary definition or the practical one. Which one do you want? In either case, a system which artificially relocates wealth from those who work for it to those who don't, is blatantly unfair to those who work hard. It also promotes a sense of mediocrity, as it remove incentives to better oneself. If one can make a living wage as a street sweeper, why take on the additional responsibility and stress of being a rocket scientist or CEO, if the rewards are not that much greater? You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the street sweeper should be paid like a neurosurgeon. If you THINK you're aware of someone saying such things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot. Then you have no problem with the wages paid to Wal-Mart employees? 2) There's nothing wrong with classes within society, as long as people are free to choose their place. That is precisely what we have. The problem is that many people's class is the product of either poor choices or lack of ambition. Many on the left feel that these people are victims, rather than participants in their own situation, and that the rest of us should be bound to "do something" about it. Right. That's like "some". But not all. The welfare system is gradually being overhauled to give certain people a kick in the pants. You know that. You read the grownup news, right? You've heard reports about some of the successes and failures of the new program. Thanks largely to the efforts of conservatives who are sick and tired of carrying dead weight. If it were up to liberals, we'd still be mollycoddling those slackers. What infuriates me the most is having to listen to the poor urban black single mom complaining about being cut off, and her advocates attempting to turn the situation into a racial issue. If I'm happy laying bricks, and my lack of stress leads my doctor to say I'm the healthiest man he's ever seen, that's my choice. If, on the other hand, I can accept chaos and stress and choose to be an emergency room doctor, that also my choice. Then don't complain if you can't afford to live the same standard of life that your CEO neighbor lives. You are not aware of any bricklayers who think they should live in $3 million homes like a neurosurgeons. I know a TON of people who think they should get the same thing as a "rich" guy. To them, no one deserves to be rich, if the rest of us can't be either. If you THINK you're aware of someone saying such things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot or a whiner. Most of them are. And most of them also buy into the left's idea of socialism and the redistribution of wealth. They also, by no coincidence, have little comprehension of the concept of personal responsibility, and have been brought up in the "entitlement" generation. You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the salary of the ER doctor should be lowered to the level of what the bricklayer is paid. Not, actually just the opposite. Many of you on the left feel that the bricklayer should be paid close to what the ER doctor is paid. Support of unions is a prime example of promoting a disproportionate wage for the intrinsic value of an un- or under skilled labor job. Maybe we'd better establish some definitions. By "ER doctor", I'm not talking about someone who's only been out of med school for a couple of years. Their life is hell for awhile. I'm talking about a seasoned doctor whose salary is at least in the $100-$300K range. Having established this idea, I can say with 100% accuracy that you're not aware of anyone claiming a union carpenter's salary should suddenly be boosted to anywhere near that range. If a tradesman wants that kind of money, he usually goes independent and becomes a builder, rather than hiring out for other peoples' projects. As long as there is a wide disparity in wages, there will be those who cry about the inequality and the unfairness of it all. But as long as some skills are more valuable than others there will always be a disparity in wages, in a free market economy. But that doesn't stop the socialists from trying to artificially "correct" this through lopsided tax rates or other methods of taking from those who earn to give to those who don't. Dave. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... What is more important to you? Helping the poor stay afloat, or being cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to little environmental issues? Dave, what is it with you today? Are you on cold medication or something? I said my mechanic finds that 99% of leakers need a washer that costs as much as one and a half lottery tickets. I don't believe that. Every car that I've ever owned or worked on (which has been many) which leaked, did so through aging seals or gaskets. I have NEVER had a leaky oil drain plug, and I'd be quite surprised that they are that big of an issue. Even if there were no washer on the plug, the amount of oil seepage around the (tight) threads of the plug would amount to what, a drop or two a week? Mrs Hall must be feeling frisky this week, because you are obviously not getting enough sleep. I said "99% of leakers are leaking from the oil plug". I did NOT say "99% of all cars". If Joe the mechanic said "99% of the cars we see need an air filter, wipers, oxygen sensor, radiator flush and new spare tire, at every visit", his suggestions would be suspect. But he's talking about a $1.50 part. This is the same mechanic who has told me at least 20 times in 15 years "I don't care WHAT you think, you do NOT need a new insert part name here. If you insist, we'll install it, but you don't need it. You're not even sure how much longer you're keeping the car". Even low-income people often change their oil. Many have no other economical choice. Cripes...I have to explain everything. The statement was meant to include people who pay to have it changed AND people who do it themselves. But if you read what I wrote, it's clear that a nasty automotive problem could be virtually eliminated for next to nothing. And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue. That's not surprising. You have no interest in your environment. You're probably the type of monkey who, if camping, burns all the plastic garbage in the campfire, right? Want another example? Like many astute guys, I can tell when someone's tires are low on air. So, at my office or apartment, if I have a pen & paper handy, I'll stick a note on someone's windshield saying something like "Hey! Your tires are REALLY low on air. Get to the pump before you get hurt". Why? It snows here. For tires that need 32 psi, being 5 pounds low can make them behave as if they were bald. Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide to go. This is fine for people who are systematic about checking it. You're talking about a conscious decision. But, next time you're walking through a parking lot, take a look at some tires. The NY Dept of Transportation sometimes runs radio ads saying they have stats which indicate something like 50% of drivers never check their tires. Couple this with the fact that full-service gas stations are practically non-existent. You understand the significance of that last statement, right? |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:33:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:02:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Do you want to pay more in taxes or less? For most people the answer is easy. As long as you don't ask them if they understand the long term consequences of such a tax decision, you're all set. At least in terms of getting yourself elected, and the aforementioned consequences don't come down the chute until your term of office ends and you're back on your ranch. And just what are those consequences? An economist can explain that to you. I'm asking you. I already know. My only concern is our ability to sell more bonds when interest rates are a complete snooze, as they are now. I'm solidly into stocks now. I've almost made up for the slump of the last 2 years. We can support our lowered tax structure as long as we roll back much of the left's entitlement programs Zzzzzzzzzzzzz........... Yea, same old. But still just as true. , and policies such as awarding huge grants of money to study such trivial items as the sex life of a tse-tse fly. For people who place zero value on knowledge, this is a great idea. Heard a great news story today, on NPR, the shameless left wing news source. Some left wing scientist has discovered something about the inner workings of mitochondria and how it's connected with genetic aspects of diseases like diabetes. What a friggin' waste of grant money. Once again, you take a comment and push it to the extreme. I never said that we should abandon legitimate medical research. But if you look at the list of grants and what they were given for, you may be surprised at the trivial subjects that many of them were paid to study. There is a web site somewhere where this information can be found. It's been a while since I've been there so I forgot the URL. But I'm sure a Google search will turn up something if you are interested enough to look. Who needs knowledge when you have Cheetos, the Simpsons, and that third thing - the opiate of the masses? You understand that last reference, I'm sure, because you have knowledge. Opiates imply illicit drugs. But you could be using the term metaphorically, to refer to such carnal activities such as sex. We can also insist that all of those countries that we provided unselfish aid at times of crisis (That they have promptly forgot) repay much of the debt that we routinely forgive. The more money you give back to the people, the better their standard of living becomes. Yeah. We'll give you back your share of all research grant money. When someone in your family gets diabetes, you can conduct your own research. I won't complain that some research student won't be able to complete their study of the life cycle of dust mites. The money will be put to better use buying a new prop for my boat, and a bunch of other things. Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
|
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 1) You have a short memory. We've discussed this. You are not permitted to use the word "socialism" unless you understand it. You do not understand it. If you disagree with me, please explain socialism and how it applies to this discussion. I could give you the dictionary definition or the practical one. Which one do you want? In either case, a system which artificially relocates wealth from those who work for it to those who don't, is blatantly unfair to those who work hard. It also promotes a sense of mediocrity, as it remove incentives to better oneself. If one can make a living wage as a street sweeper, why take on the additional responsibility and stress of being a rocket scientist or CEO, if the rewards are not that much greater? You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the street sweeper should be paid like a neurosurgeon. If you THINK you're aware of someone saying such things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot. Then you have no problem with the wages paid to Wal-Mart employees? Interesting question. (I'm flattering you). Why do you ask? Is your imaginary friend saying they should be paid the same as neurosurgeons? |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:35:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:46:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . If Dean gets into office he'll tax Grandma right out of her mobile home!......etc" Much of the fuel for that fire was supplied by the candidates themselves. Dean has publicly stated that he intends to roll back all of our tax cuts. Grandma is part of that group. Strawman: Your daughter's all grown up and has her own place to live. You stop by to annoy her just as she's taking the mail out of the mailbox. You notice she's got 19 credit card bills in the mail. Being the concerned daddy, you say "Hey...that's not gonna look so good on your credit report, having that many credit accounts...even if they're all current". She says "Hey - I was $8,000.00 in debt last year and now I've got it up to $17,300.00. I applied for more cards yesterday, and I'm thinking of finding a job that pays me less". Analogies: "applied for more cards" : Sold more Treasury bonds "job that pays me less: : Lowered taxes (income) What do you say to her? Get a better job. Dave I've given you a perfect analogy for what your president is doing: Raising debt, and lowering income. I've told you your daughter has a plan that's identical, and that she believes it's sound. Respond to that, assuming she intends to go ahead with her plan regardless of what you say. Also, factor in something you don't know yet: You *will* care about her and gently nag her until the day you die. It's human nature. I said it before, get a better job. Meaning that this government can become much more efficient financially. Tax increases are not the answer to all our woes. Spending less will give us a boost in income. Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... As long as you don't ask them if they understand the long term consequences of such a tax decision, you're all set. At least in terms of getting yourself elected, and the aforementioned consequences don't come down the chute until your term of office ends and you're back on your ranch. And just what are those consequences? An economist can explain that to you. I'm asking you. I already know. There's a big difference between: 1) The Soviet Union, where entire lists of professions were lumped into broad categories which, according to a Kremlin committee, all had the same income value. and: 2) Taxing citizens to provide services. My only concern is our ability to sell more bonds when interest rates are a complete snooze, as they are now. I'm solidly into stocks now. I've almost made up for the slump of the last 2 years. What you invest in is not connected with the government's abilities to sell bonds when rates are unattractive. We can support our lowered tax structure as long as we roll back much of the left's entitlement programs Zzzzzzzzzzzzz........... Yea, same old. But still just as true. It's a snore because you've said you shop for the best prices. In many cases, these prices exist because a company keeps expenses low by keeping salaries and benefits low. So, to have the things YOU want, and the prices YOU want, you must accept the existence of a lower class of workers PERMANENTLY. This is not to say that the exact same people will remain in a certain class forever (although some will). It simply means that a company will always need a certain number of employees in that income class. It's necessary because of YOU and everyone else who patronizes that business. The next logical step is to realize that if you want that class to be available to service YOU, you must accept that some of them may want to have families. They may want health insurance. They may need a helping hand when it comes to affording food for their kids. This is not socialism, at least not the way it's defined by the people who created the concept. But, you know that. You've read Marx and Engels. Who needs knowledge when you have Cheetos, the Simpsons, and that third thing - the opiate of the masses? You understand that last reference, I'm sure, because you have knowledge. Opiates imply illicit drugs. But you could be using the term metaphorically, to refer to such carnal activities such as sex. I was hoping you were already familiar with the comment and its author, because for me to mention it will send you off on a tangent. "Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... I've given you a perfect analogy for what your president is doing: Raising debt, and lowering income. I've told you your daughter has a plan that's identical, and that she believes it's sound. Respond to that, assuming she intends to go ahead with her plan regardless of what you say. Also, factor in something you don't know yet: You *will* care about her and gently nag her until the day you die. It's human nature. I said it before, get a better job. Meaning that this government can become much more efficient financially. Tax increases are not the answer to all our woes. Spending less will give us a boost in income. Dave Let's try this, and if you don't get it, I give up. 1) Your president has said that no matter what ANYONE says, no matter how the arithmetic works out, he's not going to get a better job. 2) The miniscule boost in your income will do little to help the deficit. It serves only one purpose: To get the president reelected by people who don't think past the current paycheck. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
... On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:44:42 +1100, K Smith wrote: Do you have some sort of acute mental problem that causes your posts to be over 850 lines? Especially when they have nothing relevant to do with boating? If you must post 850+ lines to try to **** off another poster, I suggest you email all of that verbiage directly to them. I miss the point about why we must be punished, too. Easy, Gene. She's got substance abuse problems. She's lucky she can even manage a chair without falling off. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
|
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
Chuck, I would not make such a statement about most of the liberals on
the NG. Then you would not be guilty of that example of hate speech. (Lifted almost word for word from a recent radio broadcast heard by who knows how many hundreds of thousands or millions of people) However, there is one who fits the second statement, and we know who he is. One must be totally consumed by evil to want, watch, or allow thousands of people to die merely to advance a political agenda. There are such people in the world, but not (realistically) in rec.boats. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
It's good to see that the Doug and Dave show is back on.
Bert "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching fire, or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick. Is that what you want for your kids? Nope, but I'm not cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to the environment. I'm not an alarmist who wants to redefine every power enthusiast's lifestyle by claiming that these things are more responsible for pollution than agricultural or industrial sources. I'm not in favor of rules which unnecessarily burden those who can least afford it. And I don't think the government (And by extension the taxpayers) should be forced to "fix" that problem by subsidizing the poor. Dave You're spewing again, Dave. Because you said that you read so many different information sources, surely you know that vast amounts of contamination can be eliminated by people like us, for a buck or two a year. Or, by simply doing something differently, something that costs absolutely zip. You're smart. You read all sorts of stuff. You know these things. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
A highly profitable and successful business. Did you ever wonder why
liberal talk radio went over like a fart in a space suit (and they vs conservative talk radio? Same reason that the National Enquirer outsells the Harvard Review. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
... It's good to see that the Doug and Dave show is back on. Bert Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends. If I didn't have a 14 year old son, I'd never have learned enough patience to tutor poor Dave. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... A highly profitable and successful business. Did you ever wonder why liberal talk radio went over like a fart in a space suit (and they vs conservative talk radio? Same reason that the National Enquirer outsells the Harvard Review. The funny thing, is the National Enquirer readers are more likely the Democrat voters, that will accept cigarettes to vote for a specified candidate. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
The funny thing, is the National Enquirer readers are more likely the
Democrat voters, that will accept cigarettes to vote for a specified candidate. Nah. The stereotypical democrat is against smoking. :-) But, it's easy to see how easy it is to fool some folks. If you stood outside the polling place and said, "Here's a coupon for five gallons for free diesel, pull the handle for Bush.........." I'd most likely take your five free gallons and, in the privacy of the booth, vote as I darn well pleased. Dishonest, sure.....but some acts are so contemptuous they cannot command an honest response. How do you vote in CA? The urban legends about the Democratic precinct committee people going down to skid road and loading up minivans full of transients to go and vote as instructed could *not* happen in my state. Not unless the tansients were registered to vote in the precinct they were taken to. One could speculate that if the pollworkers are crooked they could allow the transients to vote without checking registration, but if the pollworkers are that crooked who needs transients? Just grab a stack of ballots and get to work. One of the safeguards we use to prevent just that sort of thing from happening is that we enlist representatives from *both* parties to work at the polling places. The R's can't cheat to beat hell, or vice versa, without the other side catching on. It would take a flawed process, as we recently observed elsewere, to completely screw up the election. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
Gould 0738 wrote: One must be totally consumed by evil to want, watch, or allow thousands of people to die merely to advance a political agenda. There are such people in the world, but not (realistically) in rec.boats. That's krause. Too bad your ideology blinds you to it. -- Charlie ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
That's krause. Too bad your ideology blinds you to it.
-- Charlie Naw- I just look for a glimmer of hope in everybody, Charles. Even the short, sweet, 2-line insult kings. Sometimes that spark of human worthiness is fairly well obscured. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
Gould 0738 wrote: That's krause. Too bad your ideology blinds you to it. -- Charlie Naw- I just look for a glimmer of hope in everybody, Charles. Even the short, sweet, 2-line insult kings. Ya, I know liberals do. Some people, however, are just evil. Sometimes that spark of human worthiness is fairly well obscured. There's nothing of human worth in krause. -- Charlie ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
|
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
|
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
|
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:25:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching fire, or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick. Is that what you want for your kids? Nope, but I'm not cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to the environment. I'm not an alarmist who wants to redefine every power enthusiast's lifestyle by claiming that these things are more responsible for pollution than agricultural or industrial sources. I'm not in favor of rules which unnecessarily burden those who can least afford it. And I don't think the government (And by extension the taxpayers) should be forced to "fix" that problem by subsidizing the poor. Dave You're spewing again, Dave. Doesn't make it wrong. Because you said that you read so many different information sources, surely you know that vast amounts of contamination can be eliminated by people like us, for a buck or two a year. Or, by simply doing something differently, something that costs absolutely zip. I've read it, but I don't buy into it. It doesn't add up. You're smart. You read all sorts of stuff. You know these things. Which is why I don't buy into it. I can do my own calculations. Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... It's good to see that the Doug and Dave show is back on. Bert Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends. If I didn't have a 14 year old son, I'd never have learned enough patience to tutor poor Dave. In order to tutor someone, you have to have a better understanding of the subject, than the person you hope to "tutor". You have yet to provide any evidence that you do. Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:41:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . What is more important to you? Helping the poor stay afloat, or being cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to little environmental issues? Dave, what is it with you today? Are you on cold medication or something? I said my mechanic finds that 99% of leakers need a washer that costs as much as one and a half lottery tickets. I don't believe that. Every car that I've ever owned or worked on (which has been many) which leaked, did so through aging seals or gaskets. I have NEVER had a leaky oil drain plug, and I'd be quite surprised that they are that big of an issue. Even if there were no washer on the plug, the amount of oil seepage around the (tight) threads of the plug would amount to what, a drop or two a week? Mrs Hall must be feeling frisky this week, because you are obviously not getting enough sleep. I said "99% of leakers are leaking from the oil plug". I did NOT say "99% of all cars". I know that. But taking my own personal experience, which extends to my own 20-something cars (and boats), plus those of other people which I've worked on, and I have NEVER seen a leaking oil plug. I HAVE seen leaks, and they come from other places. So what was that about 99% of leakers? Many have no other economical choice. Cripes...I have to explain everything. No, you don't. And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue. That's not surprising. You have no interest in your environment. You're probably the type of monkey who, if camping, burns all the plastic garbage in the campfire, right? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do have experience with cars and based on that experience, I disagree with your conclusion. It's statements like yours which get picked up by the marginally educated. People actually buy into this nonsense, and get the wrong opinion about pollution and who the biggest offenders really are. It's not the guy who changes his own oil, or the fisherman with the 9.9 hp 2-stroke outboard. Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide to go. This is fine for people who are systematic about checking it. You're talking about a conscious decision. Don't you believe that driving involves a certain amount of responsibility toward safety? Shouldn't checking your tires be a part of this responsibility? Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:58:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 1) You have a short memory. We've discussed this. You are not permitted to use the word "socialism" unless you understand it. You do not understand it. If you disagree with me, please explain socialism and how it applies to this discussion. I could give you the dictionary definition or the practical one. Which one do you want? In either case, a system which artificially relocates wealth from those who work for it to those who don't, is blatantly unfair to those who work hard. It also promotes a sense of mediocrity, as it remove incentives to better oneself. If one can make a living wage as a street sweeper, why take on the additional responsibility and stress of being a rocket scientist or CEO, if the rewards are not that much greater? You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the street sweeper should be paid like a neurosurgeon. If you THINK you're aware of someone saying such things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot. Then you have no problem with the wages paid to Wal-Mart employees? Interesting question. (I'm flattering you). Why do you ask? Is your imaginary friend saying they should be paid the same as neurosurgeons? I find it interesting because not that long ago, you guys on the left were lambasting Wal-Mart for paying "slave wages" to its employees, even though those people were free to leave and look elsewhere. You have jumped in on the "exploitation" bandwagon, and have dismissed the principles of the free market concepts of supply and demand setting the wage scales, and opinione that those wages should be increased to some level higher. But never once explaining how you were going to justify this increase to those higher skill levels who would be no better off than the "new" Wal-Mart wage scale. The comparison of one example of each end of the skill range, makes this argument sound somewhat absurd, but the principles are the same. Socialism attempts to "compress" or limit the range of wages that exist for the different skill levels. So no, a street sweeper will not be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. But the difference would ne be nearly as great as it is now. At some point people will question the work needed to make that higher wage, and the responsibility that goes with it, if the reward is not much better. Now, you are suggesting that you agree with the free market inspired wage scales as they apply to different skill levels? Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:09:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . As long as you don't ask them if they understand the long term consequences of such a tax decision, you're all set. At least in terms of getting yourself elected, and the aforementioned consequences don't come down the chute until your term of office ends and you're back on your ranch. And just what are those consequences? An economist can explain that to you. I'm asking you. I already know. There's a big difference between: 1) The Soviet Union, where entire lists of professions were lumped into broad categories which, according to a Kremlin committee, all had the same income value. and: 2) Taxing citizens to provide services. The differences are not that much. The only difference is where you pay and how. What's the difference if you and another less skilled person are both paid $30,000 a year in salary, compared to whether you are paid $60,000 to his $30,000, but you are taxed 50% of that salary, while his is only taxed at 10%? My only concern is our ability to sell more bonds when interest rates are a complete snooze, as they are now. I'm solidly into stocks now. I've almost made up for the slump of the last 2 years. What you invest in is not connected with the government's abilities to sell bonds when rates are unattractive. I'm only concerned my retirement income. That's why I'm providing my own, and not depending on the government to provide it. We can support our lowered tax structure as long as we roll back much of the left's entitlement programs Zzzzzzzzzzzzz........... Yea, same old. But still just as true. It's a snore because you've said you shop for the best prices. In many cases, these prices exist because a company keeps expenses low by keeping salaries and benefits low. So, to have the things YOU want, and the prices YOU want, you must accept the existence of a lower class of workers PERMANENTLY. I totally understand this, and have no problem accepting it. It's human nature. That's not to say that I'm automatically a bad person for playing the system to my advantage. This is not to say that the exact same people will remain in a certain class forever (although some will). They can always strive for training and education and move up the "class" ladder. It's their own choice. It simply means that a company will always need a certain number of employees in that income class. It's necessary because of YOU and everyone else who patronizes that business. The next logical step is to realize that if you want that class to be available to service YOU, you must accept that some of them may want to have families. They may want health insurance. They may need a helping hand when it comes to affording food for their kids. Personal responsibility dictates that you not have more mouths than you can afford to feed. Poor planning on your part does not constitute a financial crisis on mine. This is not socialism, at least not the way it's defined by the people who created the concept. No, THIS is not socialism. But the solution to the problem often times includes socialist concepts. Anytime you penalize an achiever to prop up an underachiever, you are redistributing wealth and that is a core socialist principle. But, you know that. You've read Marx and Engels. Yes I have. Who needs knowledge when you have Cheetos, the Simpsons, and that third thing - the opiate of the masses? You understand that last reference, I'm sure, because you have knowledge. Opiates imply illicit drugs. But you could be using the term metaphorically, to refer to such carnal activities such as sex. I was hoping you were already familiar with the comment and its author, because for me to mention it will send you off on a tangent. "Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx Your disdain for religion and to the family and community bonds that it provides, speaks volumes as to why you think the way you do. Those bonds and the networks that form along them took care of those in need long before the "gimme" generation started looking to the government to mandate the concept. Government control of course, would open the door to abuse, and isolates the recipient from the donor, and lessens the shame which would normally happen if the recipient were "cheating" the system. Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:13:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I've given you a perfect analogy for what your president is doing: Raising debt, and lowering income. I've told you your daughter has a plan that's identical, and that she believes it's sound. Respond to that, assuming she intends to go ahead with her plan regardless of what you say. Also, factor in something you don't know yet: You *will* care about her and gently nag her until the day you die. It's human nature. I said it before, get a better job. Meaning that this government can become much more efficient financially. Tax increases are not the answer to all our woes. Spending less will give us a boost in income. Dave Let's try this, and if you don't get it, I give up. Then you'd better give up, because I'm not buying into your example. Not because, as you might think, I fail to understand it, but because it's just wrong. 1) Your president has said that no matter what ANYONE says, no matter how the arithmetic works out, he's not going to get a better job. There are few absolutes. And this is not one of them. The government CAN increase it's income through means other than taxes on hard working people. 2) The miniscule boost in your income will do little to help the deficit. One could say that the Bush tax cuts may have played a significant part in the economic recovery that we're now experiencing. It serves only one purpose: To get the president reelected by people who don't think past the current paycheck. The margin of error for predictions increases exponentially proportionate to the passage of time. In other words, it's very tough to predict what will happen in the future. So enjoy the present. Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
Agreeing with: "The liberals in this country wake up every morning hoping
that thousands of innocent Americans will be killed in a terrorist strike just to make the Bush administration look bad" is hateful and divisive. Why is that hateful? Especially if there is some truth in it. We're done. If that reflects your perspective, nothing you post is worthy of reading or response. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue. Not really, Dave. Here's why: 1) With some exceptions, industry has done a pretty good job of cleaning up its act. When it comes to eliminating/minimizing effluents (the crap that comes out of a manufacturing facility), many of the ideas which have become standard were ideas thought of by people who work at the companies themselves, and have been adopted as standards due to their effectiveness. Now...don't respond yet - read this: 2) In most places, the water that runs into street drains is not treated. It goes directly into a drainage basin or a naturally occurring body of water. Here, for instance, that would be Lake Ontario. If it goes into a drainage basin, it ends up in the ground, and the next stop may be the water table itself. Wait....don't respond yet. Almost anywhere in this country, guess who's responsible for most of the chemical additions to surface water runoff? That's not surprising. You have no interest in your environment. You're probably the type of monkey who, if camping, burns all the plastic garbage in the campfire, right? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do have experience with cars and based on that experience, I disagree with your conclusion. It's statements like yours which get picked up by the marginally educated. People actually buy into this nonsense, and get the wrong opinion about pollution and who the biggest offenders really are. It's not the guy who changes his own oil, or the fisherman with the 9.9 hp 2-stroke outboard. What harm comes from suggesting that mechanics or car owners try to achieve zero leakage, if they can do it with a washer, or by wiping up the 1/2 quart that they spill all over the suspension crossmembers and the ground? Some driver ed teachers take the kids under the hood and teach them a little about maintenance, so they know how to check their fluids. If the teacher was anal about leaky oil, and told kids to investigate and fix leaks ASAP when they saw them, would you consider that an intrusion into "family values", like unauthorized sex education? :-) Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide to go. This is fine for people who are systematic about checking it. You're talking about a conscious decision. Don't you believe that driving involves a certain amount of responsibility toward safety? Shouldn't checking your tires be a part of this responsibility? I didn't say people shouldn't check it. I said that a huge percentage do NOT. You can wish for a fairytale world, but it doesn't exist. I told you to glance at tires in parking lots. Do it. Your example of lowering your tire pressure is fine, but you made a conscious decision and experimented with it. This is not the same as the random situation that many people live with, where their tires are down to 16 or 20 lbs, and they didn't find out until they had a blowout, or hydroplaned on a wet road, or wore out a set of tires in 18k miles. |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... I find it interesting because not that long ago, you guys on the left were lambasting Wal-Mart for paying "slave wages" to its employees, even though those people were free to leave and look elsewhere. I never complained about the wages they pay. You're lumping me into a category with someone else. Maybe Harry. My beef with Wal Mart goes far deeper than that, which may be why you've never really understood it. You have jumped in on the "exploitation" bandwagon, and have dismissed the principles of the free market concepts of supply and demand setting the wage scales, and opinione that those wages should be increased to some level higher. No, I didn't. Ease up on the mushrooms, Dave. Socialism attempts to "compress" or limit the range of wages that exist for the different skill levels. So no, a street sweeper will not be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. But the difference would ne be nearly as great as it is now. At some point people will question the work needed to make that higher wage, and the responsibility that goes with it, if the reward is not much better. Now, you are suggesting that you agree with the free market inspired wage scales as they apply to different skill levels? Let's play with this! First, let's pick a job that actually relates to YOU. A service which, if it weren't performed, would really **** you off. Two, as a matter of fact: Hotel maids and office janitors. If you checked into a hotel and along with your room key, they handed you a bucket of cleaning supplies, you'd walk out the door and go home. And, since every office has some asshole who ****es all over the toilet or stands two feet from the urinal and soaks the floor, things would get really disgusting after a week without the janitor. Your place of business would begin to resemble a sports bar on Superbowl Sunday. So, you agree that these two cleaning people are absolutely necessary. Next: Since they're necessary, it means that as a group, they must exist forever. There will always be cleaning people. They are not paid very well now, and they never will be. Next: We live in a country where if you add up the salaries of two such people, it's next to impossible to buy a nice little house, maybe a used car, and have a kid or two. You're going to say that they can better themselves if they'd like. True. But, they'll have to be replaced, right? But, some people actually like cleaning. They're good at it, more efficient than other people. And they may prefer quiet work where they don't have to be dragged down by the failures of other people. So, if through some outside mechanism, perhaps legislation, their income was raised to $20k a year from $14k a year, would that be such a bad thing? That's still a far cry from $200k - $2 million per year that many medical specialists make, don't you think? Or, do you think people should be penalized for sticking with work that they like? |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
|
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:12:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue. Not really, Dave. Here's why: 1) With some exceptions, industry has done a pretty good job of cleaning up its act. When it comes to eliminating/minimizing effluents (the crap that comes out of a manufacturing facility), many of the ideas which have become standard were ideas thought of by people who work at the companies themselves, and have been adopted as standards due to their effectiveness. Now...don't respond yet - read this: 2) In most places, the water that runs into street drains is not treated. It goes directly into a drainage basin or a naturally occurring body of water. Here, for instance, that would be Lake Ontario. If it goes into a drainage basin, it ends up in the ground, and the next stop may be the water table itself. Wait....don't respond yet. Almost anywhere in this country, guess who's responsible for most of the chemical additions to surface water runoff? Agricultural runoff. At least according to the reports that I've read concerning lake pollution. This runoff comprises of both artificial fertilizers, and the byproducts of animal waste. That's not surprising. You have no interest in your environment. You're probably the type of monkey who, if camping, burns all the plastic garbage in the campfire, right? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do have experience with cars and based on that experience, I disagree with your conclusion. It's statements like yours which get picked up by the marginally educated. People actually buy into this nonsense, and get the wrong opinion about pollution and who the biggest offenders really are. It's not the guy who changes his own oil, or the fisherman with the 9.9 hp 2-stroke outboard. What harm comes from suggesting that mechanics or car owners try to achieve zero leakage, if they can do it with a washer, or by wiping up the 1/2 quart that they spill all over the suspension crossmembers and the ground? No harm. But don't attempt to suggest that by not performing this simple task it will result in significant amounts of pollution, because it just isn't so. My own personal experience will back me up on this. Some driver ed teachers take the kids under the hood and teach them a little about maintenance, so they know how to check their fluids. If the teacher was anal about leaky oil, and told kids to investigate and fix leaks ASAP when they saw them, would you consider that an intrusion into "family values", like unauthorized sex education? :-) Ha ha! You really need to squelch that nasty habit of comparing dissimilar concepts and judging them by the same rules. On that subject, I plan to give my daughter the "Car maintenance 101" course, when she is old enough to need it. She will learn how to change a tire, oil, and check all fluids. Too many people these days know next to nothing about the things that goon under the hood of their car. Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide to go. This is fine for people who are systematic about checking it. You're talking about a conscious decision. Don't you believe that driving involves a certain amount of responsibility toward safety? Shouldn't checking your tires be a part of this responsibility? I didn't say people shouldn't check it. I said that a huge percentage do NOT. You can wish for a fairytale world, but it doesn't exist. I told you to glance at tires in parking lots. Do it. I don't live in a fairytale world, I'm not a liberal. I do know that a large percentage of people do not check their tires regularly. That only tells me that a large segment of the population does not understand the concept of personal responsibility. Your example of lowering your tire pressure is fine, but you made a conscious decision and experimented with it. This is not the same as the random situation that many people live with, where their tires are down to 16 or 20 lbs, and they didn't find out until they had a blowout, or hydroplaned on a wet road, or wore out a set of tires in 18k miles. So what do yo want to do about it? Are you suggesting that we "educate" those people about the aspects of proper tire inflation, so that they can ignore it along with the rest of the responsibilities that they should be taking care of? Dave |
OT : Another poll to break Harry's (if he has one) heart
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:30:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I find it interesting because not that long ago, you guys on the left were lambasting Wal-Mart for paying "slave wages" to its employees, even though those people were free to leave and look elsewhere. I never complained about the wages they pay. You're lumping me into a category with someone else. Maybe Harry. My beef with Wal Mart goes far deeper than that, which may be why you've never really understood it. It would help if you elaborated. You have jumped in on the "exploitation" bandwagon, and have dismissed the principles of the free market concepts of supply and demand setting the wage scales, and opinione that those wages should be increased to some level higher. No, I didn't. Ease up on the mushrooms, Dave. Really? I was sure you were among those who wanted the salaries of those unskilled workers (Including McDonalds and Wal-Mart) to be raised to a level where they could be reasonably expected to live a "comfortable" life. Socialism attempts to "compress" or limit the range of wages that exist for the different skill levels. So no, a street sweeper will not be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. But the difference would ne be nearly as great as it is now. At some point people will question the work needed to make that higher wage, and the responsibility that goes with it, if the reward is not much better. Now, you are suggesting that you agree with the free market inspired wage scales as they apply to different skill levels? Let's play with this! First, let's pick a job that actually relates to YOU. A service which, if it weren't performed, would really **** you off. Two, as a matter of fact: Hotel maids and office janitors. If you checked into a hotel and along with your room key, they handed you a bucket of cleaning supplies, you'd walk out the door and go home. And, since every office has some asshole who ****es all over the toilet or stands two feet from the urinal and soaks the floor, things would get really disgusting after a week without the janitor. Your place of business would begin to resemble a sports bar on Superbowl Sunday. Yea, so? So, you agree that these two cleaning people are absolutely necessary. Yea so? Next: Since they're necessary, it means that as a group, they must exist forever. There will always be cleaning people. They are not paid very well now, and they never will be. Not as long as the pool of people qualified to do the work, exceeds the demand for the skillset. That's free market 101. Next: We live in a country where if you add up the salaries of two such people, it's next to impossible to buy a nice little house, maybe a used car, and have a kid or two. Yea so? You're going to say that they can better themselves if they'd like. True. But, they'll have to be replaced, right? And there is always someone to replace them. That's why the wages are so low. Haven't you figured this out yet? But, some people actually like cleaning. They're good at it, more efficient than other people. I really like boating. Maybe someone should pay me a wage for doing what I like instead of what makes the most money. And they may prefer quiet work where they don't have to be dragged down by the failures of other people. And the compensation for that is a low wage. What, do you think that dealing with the pressures of a high income responsibility should not be rewarded? The risks and the pressure are some of the things that command the higher salary. If you want to work in a happy-go-lucky job, then you get paid accordingly. So, if through some outside mechanism, perhaps legislation, their income was raised to $20k a year from $14k a year, would that be such a bad thing? It would be for the person who was already earning $20K, and who now has to wonder why this unskilled person is now making what they are. That former $20K person now wants a raise, and points to the former $14K person's raise and commensurate skillset as a justification. Surely you can realize where this will lead? That's still a far cry from $200k - $2 million per year that many medical specialists make, don't you think? But those people have a LOT more responsibility. Or, do you think people should be penalized for sticking with work that they like? See above. We all can't do what we like, and expect to get paid well for it (unless, of course, you like rocket science, or happen to be good at professional sports or entertainment). What determines a particular salary is the relative worth to society, that a particular skillset has, weighed against the number of people qualified to perform the job. Dave |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com