AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

How do you know that? I suggest that you know no one well and are making an assumption. Managers work long hours. 60 hours/week is expected of managers who are salaried. In fact, a young woman I worked with when we were both hourly employees turned down the assistant manager's job when it was offered to her because she would lose money (she based her computations on the hourly wage multiplied by the 60 hours she would work as an assistant manager).

I have lived in several states and no one in any of them ever worked a 40 hour week as a clerk

2.) There is no such thing as a 40-hour week for people below management in retail with the possible exception of Christmas rush. Even then, stores hire extra employees. Your $330 gross simply does not exist.

"THEY THAT CAN GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO PURCHASE A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SAFETY." -- Benjamin Franklin

Maintaining the privacy of our international communications is therefore not maintaining an essential liberty.

One of the prices of preserving our essential liberty is to permit government to listen in on our international communications without a warrant, in order to detect those planning to terrorize us (e.g., mass murder us) and thereby deprive us of our essential liberty.

Maintaining the privacy of our international communications is therefore not maintaining an essential liberty.

So free speech is "naturally" limited if directed outside geographical and/or political borders?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Monitoring communications does not constitute any unreasonable searches and seizures.

Furthermore, prohibiting the privacy of speech does not constitute abridging the freedom of speech.

Certainly, the speech in the media--television, radio, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, public speeches, etc.--is free while certainly not private.

VALID LOGIC IS SUPERIOR TO ALLEGED OPINION.

The monitoring of or listening to communications does not constitute any unreasonable searches and seizures, regardless of what the courts have allegedly said.

Furthermore, it is absolutely RIGHT that prohibiting the privacy of some kinds of speech does not constitute abridging the freedom of that speech.

Certainly, the speech in the media--television, radio, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, public speeches, AND OTHER SPEECH ZONES WHETHER REGULATED OR NOT--is free while certainly not private. It is free because the speaker is not prohibited from saying or posting what he wants to say as long as it is not slanderous or libelous.

I just don't understand how you reconcile your wacky opinions with the reality of our modern world. I'm serious about this. Do you pretend that these things just don't matter, or that the FCC somehow doesn't exist? I don't see how you could know if its' existence and at the same time claim that they don't regulate speech.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19858&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
John Maynard Keynes, R.I.P.
The basic Keynesian stimulus argument goes something like this: If the federal government engages in deficit spending during a recession, the added government expenditures (unaccompanied by tax increases) will boost "aggregate demand." Greater federal spending on a road, for instance, will create jobs for construction workers, who can then spend their additional income on, say, bread. Bakers now will have more to spend on, say, cars and so on, says Richard B. McKenzie, a professor in the Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine.

National income stimulated by the initial government road project can grow by some multiple of the expenditure, Keynes' theory says. A stimulus package (and budget deficit) of $1 trillion would morph into a minimum of $1.5 trillion in additional national income -- maybe even into $4 trillion or $10 trillion.

But if it sounds too good to be true, it is, says McKenzie.

If such income growth were possible, the country would be awash in prosperity, given that the federal government increased the national debt by $1.88 trillion in fiscal 2009 and could run deficits of $1.6 trillion and $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010 and 2011, respectively.

Between 2012 and 2015 it will add at least another $3 trillion to the national debt.

As economist Milton Friedman observed, when the government engages in deficit spending, it must borrow the extra funds from someone who could have spent them on private-sector projects. Thus, an increase in government spending could be totally offset by a decrease in private spending, as lendable funds are diverted from private to government uses. The net effect can be no net increase in aggregate demand -- and no multiplier effect. Indeed, with the inevitable waste in government stimulus projects, the multiplier effect could as easily be negative as positive, says McKenzie.

Source: Richard B. McKenzie, "John Maynard Keynes, R.I.P.," Freeman, October 2010.

The monitoring of or listening to communications does not constitute any unreasonable searches and seizures, regardless of what the courts have allegedly said.

Most of the beliefs you, Cyclo, express here are false! They are false regardless of how many or what people agree with you.

Prove that denial of the privacy of a communication denies the freedom of making that communication.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As economist Milton Friedman observed, when the government engages in deficit spending, it must borrow the extra funds from someone who could have spent them on private-sector projects.

There's no evidence at all that the Stim bill DID NOT lead to a lack of ability for private-sector projects to get off the ground, due to a lack of available funds or credit.