Isn't it hypocritical that Republicans say there is enough economic pie to allow 1% of the wealthiest to own 50% of all assets and earn 40% of all income, but that there isn't enough economic pie to allow 1% of the poorest illegal immigrants take our shit-eating $8/hr jobs? Republicans say illegal immigration is "devaluing labor"; but the same republicans hate Unions who defend the value of the worker and seek to raise wages. Republicans say the Billionaires are entitled to keep their billions, but shouldn't you only keep what you actually produce? If you make 100 tomatoes should you get 150 tomatoes? Can you say a Billionaire is really millions of times more productive than the average American earning $50,000 a year? Even though the US median wage is $12.83/hour. But that's another issue.
I agree, automation is going to be a HUGE problem for societies that still think the only way you can make a living is by "work". A guaranteed minimum wage, or guaranteed ownership of capital is the FUTURE. Currently we are looking at a return to the slave-south (antebellum south) as the future. Where 1% owns all the capital and earns all the wages of labor (slaves/robotics/automation) and the other 99% get to eat shit.
They do but what Republican supporters don't understand is Americans would want significantly more to do the same jobs. Thus why big business wants cheaper foreign labor from the third world.
So are Republicans against living wages for Americans? Or do they think illegal immigrants don't deserve a living wage?
That Republicans are against a living wage is self evident. Have you been in a coma for the last 30 years? Hell, dems only throw the odd peanut but that is still better than continually being shit on by Republicans though not by much.
I was a Republican until about 2 years ago, drinking their salty man-koolaid. I just noticed how your quote from Luke sounds a lot like Sean (blabbering-idiot) Hannity's "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability." Was that on purpose?
That's pretty funny because I have never even been to this site before (and that's saying something because I did frequent a lot of forums for years) until a few days ago when I came across it looking up how ISIS got chemical weapons.
And yet it is true. Doesn't really matter much who you think I am based on my what...20 posts so far?
Bingo...and I know gturner well from that exact thread which is one of the few threads I initially joined to message on lol.
Maybe those two are also the same? But let's not derail my thread about this...just make a thread about me somewhere else.
Well, that would be cool, but we actually aren't. Need to work harder on this, get out the search engine optimizing otters!
If we all put a link here in the sigs of all the other accounts on other forums we post at that might help.
A search of that exact phrase brings us up on page 3. Anyway, according to Google analytics, nobody in the past week has been to Wordforge after such a search.
So... Now that our DL's story has been discredited... I am willing to assume he is a Troll Kingdomer who came here due to the recent threads over there. Maybe he is John Castle, I don't know, but as long as he doesn't break the rules why not let him stay? A mod could just watch his IP address and if it changes all the time then it is likely someone IP banned who is using anonomizer or a similar service.
Some immigration amusement In the Huffington Post Sorry, Republicans: Ending Birthright Citizenship Violates The Constitution ...<snip>... How courts would react to a proposed constitutional amendment that clashed with the equal protection clause is a bit more complicated due to the lack of precedent, as we say in the law. The Supreme Court has never actually struck down a constitutional amendment that was ratified -- a fact that might discourage lower courts from ruling against even a proposed amendment. Needless to say, the idea that the USSC could strike down a Constitutional Amendment as unconstitutional has legal scholars in stitches.
Somehow I botched the link. Huffington Post article In hunting it down again an article about it at Mediaite came up. But according to The Huffington Post, it turns out that trying to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship is itself unconstitutional, and we’re just kind of stuck with it forever. “It turns out that the very idea of amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants — a move that squarely targets Latinos — would probably be found unconstitutional…” writes legal writer Christian Farias. “The reason these proposals would be found unconstitutional is rooted in the very thing Republicans are attacking: the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Because for all the provisions and principles that the 14th Amendment stands for… one of the amendment’s cornerstones is its promise of equal treatment for everyone.” Yes, you read that correctly. You can’t amend the 14th Amendment because it’s against the 14th Amendment. I’ll be blunt: this argument is asinine. The whole point of amending the Constitution is to change what is and isn’t constitutional. Saying that the very process itself could ever be unconstitutional is a non sequitur.
Absolutely -- it depends what you are looking for. A search for "Dayton Kitchens," for example, has a Wordforge thread on the first page. Last I checked, "kill yourself" also brought up some Wordforge links. But searching for how ISIS got chemical weapons finds our thread pretty far down the list.
