24
   

Congratulations, House Republicans!

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 01:50 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
.or the word "qua."


It counts in scrabble. So now you have been told to explain or prove something in an affected manner. It still means the same thing.


We are not playing scrabble, CJ. And David was, perhaps humorously, pretending that he was trying to be "very clear."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 01:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
American conservatism...in its current form...
is one of the most loathsome things ever to happen to our country.
Conservatism means ORTHODOXY.
From your post, it sounds as if u dont know that.
Conservatism means non-deviating, no cheating,
from the way it was in the BEGINNING (except as amended per Article 5).
Conservatism HAPPENED to America at the instant that the Republic was founded.
Your committment is to cheating, Frank.
David
Frank Apisa wrote:
No, David. I am committed not to cheat.
(Ask any of my golfing partners...and they will say that I am the most trustworthy of the group.)
In golf, how MOTIVATED r u to cheat??
I do not allege that u NEVER tell the truth.
To the extent that u tell the truth, u r being conservative.
To the extent that u deviate from it, u r being liberal
(your protestations to the contrary not withstanding).


Actually...the word is "notwithstanding" not "not withstanding."

And your assertion here is little more than gratuitous pap. (Your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.)


Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I am saying that it is my opinion that American conservatism as now constituted...
is the most disgusting excuse for a political philosophy that has ever polluted a society.
Therefore, u r convinced that the philosophy of communism and the philosophy of nazism were nicer
than the origins of Americanism (Sons of Liberty -- American Revolution, James Madison). Yes??
David


David, I am saying that it is my opinion that American conservatism as now constituted...is the most disgusting excuse for a political philosophy that has ever polluted a society.

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 03:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
ANYONE working a 40 hour work week in the United States of America should be guaranteed a wage that will provide a very decent standard of living. That includes people who sling hamburgers.


Since when?
Frank Apisa wrote:
Since forever.
Let 's see some EVIDENCE of this. Prove it.
Frank Apisa wrote:
No.
Of course not; its impossible,
like trying to prove that 3 + 3 = 7.
What u said is NOT true; therefore: u cannot prove it.

Quote:
Who owes those people a living?
Frank Apisa wrote:
Humanity. And anyone who thinks otherwise is not
a part of humanity...or at least, not an essential part.
DAVID wrote:
Show us a DNA test that supports your allegation.
Frank Apisa wrote:
No.
Again, u cannot offer such supportive evidence
because what u said is foolishness of no merit.



Quote:
IF u DO, then u will not appear
to be a victim of psychotic hallucination.
Frank Apisa wrote:
I don't have to do either so as not to appear
to be a victim of psychotic hallucination
Alas, u DO,
unless George Washington and James Madison were not parts of humanity.

Humans originated laissez faire free enterprize,
which merely allows for the natural laws of economics
to be expressed in an environment of freedom
wherein each side keeps its commitments,
despite your expressed denial of that.
Your posts of today remain un-related
to the known historical facts. Its not a mystery.

Good sportsmanship in debate demands that u admit
that u were rong, and make a clean breast of it,
but that is not forthcoming.




Quote:
FOR THE RECORD:
Let me be very clear that I think "otherwise", as he puts it,
and I am very confident that Frank's allegation qua "humanity" has NO foundation in reality.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Not to quibble, David, but if you were actually interested in being "very clear"...
you probably would not use that affected spelling...
To WHICH "affected spelling" do u refer, Frank??????? Please indicate those words.

In the paragraf after the words: "very clear"
all of the spelling that I see there is fully paradigmatic;
accordingly, I call upon u to ADMIT
that there is NO "affected spelling" present
in the paragraf after those aforesaid words.



Frank Apisa wrote:
or the word "qua."
Its not that, Frank; its that I give u credit
for ALREADY KNOWING what it means
(hell, your name sounds Italian)
n I dont feel like writing out: "in reference to".
Add to that my disrespect for the anti-logic
of perpetuating any non-fonentic spelling of English.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I HERETO SET MY HAND (on the keyboard):

David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 04:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Actually...the word is "notwithstanding" not "not withstanding."
Uh-huh. So there is no word to WITHSTAND
and when someone is not doing that,
then he cannot be not withstanding. Gotcha.


Frank Apisa wrote:
And your assertion here is little more than gratuitous pap.
(Your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.)
Ah, the "gratuitous pap" defense; yea, that always refutive.




Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I am saying that it is my opinion that American conservatism as now constituted...
is the most disgusting excuse for a political philosophy that has ever polluted a society.
Therefore, u r convinced that the philosophy of communism and the philosophy of nazism were nicer
than the origins of Americanism (Sons of Liberty -- American Revolution, James Madison). Yes??
David


Frank Apisa wrote:
David, I am saying that it is my opinion that American conservatism as now constituted...
is the most disgusting excuse for a political philosophy that has ever polluted a society.
Yea, I saw that b4 and then I offered a follow up question of whether
u r convinced that the philosophy of communism and the philosophy of nazism were nicer
than the origins of Americanism (Sons of Liberty -- American Revolution, James Madison),
but the answer that I received was a mere repetition (a redundant one).
U opted to withhold that information.





David
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 04:31 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
ANYONE working a 40 hour work week in the United States of America should be guaranteed a wage that will provide a very decent standard of living. That includes people who sling hamburgers.


Since when?
Frank Apisa wrote:
Since forever.
Let 's see some EVIDENCE of this. Prove it.
Frank Apisa wrote:
No.
Of course not; its impossible,
like trying to prove that 3 + 3 = 7.
What u said is NOT true; therefore: u cannot prove it.


Sorry, David...I am not going to play that game.


Quote:

Quote:
Who owes those people a living?
Frank Apisa wrote:
Humanity. And anyone who thinks otherwise is not
a part of humanity...or at least, not an essential part.
DAVID wrote:
Show us a DNA test that supports your allegation.
Frank Apisa wrote:
No.
Again, u cannot offer such supportive evidence
because what u said is foolishness of no merit.


It is far from foolishness...and has plenty of merit.

In any case, anyone who works full time should earn enough to live a reasonable life.



Quote:
Quote:
IF u DO, then u will not appear
to be a victim of psychotic hallucination.
Frank Apisa wrote:
I don't have to do either so as not to appear
to be a victim of psychotic hallucination
Alas, u DO,
unless George Washington and James Madison were not parts of humanity.

Humans originated laissez faire free enterprize,
which merely allows for the natural laws of economics
to be expressed in an environment of freedom
wherein each side keeps its commitments,
despite your expressed denial of that.
Your posts of today remain un-related
to the known historical facts. Its not a mystery.

Good sportsmanship in debate demands that u admit
that u were rong, and make a clean breast of it,
but that is not forthcoming.



But I was not wrong, David. I don't have to do either so as not to appear
to be a victim of psychotic hallucination


Quote:
FOR THE RECORD:
Let me be very clear that I think "otherwise", as he puts it,
and I am very confident that Frank's allegation qua "humanity" has NO foundation in reality.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Not to quibble, David, but if you were actually interested in being "very clear"...
you probably would not use that affected spelling...
To WHICH "affected spelling" do u refer, Frank??????? Please indicate those words.

In the paragraf after the words: "very clear"
all of the spelling that I see there is fully paradigmatic;
accordingly, I call upon u to ADMIT
that there is NO "affected spelling" present
in the paragraf after those aforesaid words.



Frank Apisa wrote:
or the word "qua."
Its not that, Frank; its that I give u credit
for ALREADY KNOWING what it means
(hell, your name sounds Italian)
n I dont feel like writing out: "in reference to".
Add to that my disrespect for the anti-logic
of perpetuating any non-fonentic spelling of English.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I HERETO SET MY HAND (on the keyboard):

David
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 04:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Actually...the word is "notwithstanding" not "not withstanding."
Uh-huh. So there is no word to WITHSTAND
and when someone is not doing that,
then he cannot be not withstanding. Gotcha.


You meant notwithstanding. Good sportsmanship in this kind of debate requires that you acknowledge that.


Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
And your assertion here is little more than gratuitous pap.
(Your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.)
Ah, the "gratuitous pap" defense; yea, that always refutive.


It is instructive. Please accept it as such.



Quote:

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I am saying that it is my opinion that American conservatism as now constituted...
is the most disgusting excuse for a political philosophy that has ever polluted a society.
Therefore, u r convinced that the philosophy of communism and the philosophy of nazism were nicer
than the origins of Americanism (Sons of Liberty -- American Revolution, James Madison). Yes??
David


Frank Apisa wrote:
David, I am saying that it is my opinion that American conservatism as now constituted...
is the most disgusting excuse for a political philosophy that has ever polluted a society.
Yea, I saw that b4 and then I offered a follow up question of whether
u r convinced that the philosophy of communism and the philosophy of nazism were nicer
than the origins of Americanism (Sons of Liberty -- American Revolution, James Madison),
but the answer that I received was a mere repetition (a redundant one).
U opted to withhold that information.


David... I am saying that it is my opinion that American conservatism as now constituted...is the most disgusting excuse for a political philosophy that has ever polluted a society.

If you want to draw inferences from that...please do so.

And keep in mind that I am trying to tone down my "regard" for American conservatism. It really is not nearly as positive as I have mentioned so far. Wink
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 08:16 pm
DAVID and Frank --

The crap on this page isn't even worth reading. Stop it, you two cute little tykes.

Sheeesh!
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 08:21 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
The crap on this page isn't even worth reading. Stop it, you two cute little tykes.


And an expert on crap is exactly what it needs. Welcome and carry on.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 08:35 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig, you hit the nail on the head. I have barely been able to look at A2k for a week or so, and I finally log in and find this hairsplitting contest. David says Franks name sounds Italian? But David's name sounds like Michaelangelo's Fraternity. I'm with you, sheesh, double sheesh!! Doesn't anybody remember how to have fun anymore?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 08:38 pm
@glitterbag,
Tell them to look up the word puerile, glitter.

Good word.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 08:38 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Doesn't anybody remember how to have fun anymore?


If you think what is happening to this country is funny, start another thread.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 08:39 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Tell them to look up the word puerile,


You try looking up humility.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 08:53 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig said I should tell you boys to look up the word puerile, so please look it up. Rest assured, neither not withstanding or notwithstanding, He and I know what it means. I think Frank does as well, he's just baiting David.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2014 09:14 pm
@glitterbag,
Welcome back, bag.
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2014 12:15 am
@JTT,
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/butler.jpg


"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
-- Smedley Butler
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2014 06:48 am

The Right's Crusade to Repeal the 20th Century
Opposing the minimum wage, overtime pay, even child labor laws, the GOP is trying to make it easier to exploit workers.

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/childlabor.jpg
Photo Credit: Lewis Hine/Corbis
March 14, 2014 |


Silly me: President Obama’s executive order to expand opportunities for overtime pay Thursday seemed like a win-win. Currently, if you make more than $23,000, you can’t necessarily receive overtime; the president’s order would raise that cap, and also make it harder for employers to classify people with almost no supervisory duties as “supervisors” and thus exempt.

Where’s the downside? Newly qualified workers currently being forced to work overtime without pay will now get higher wages. Or, if their employer doesn’t want to spring for the overtime pay (traditionally time and a half), they will have to expand their workforce to get the work done. Higher wages and/or more jobs: Sounds good, right?

Not to Republicans, of course. The backlash to the president’s overtime-pay expansion just makes clear what we’ve known for a long time: They oppose every attempt by government to reward hard work and protect the rights of workers – unless it applies to the very wealthy.

Speaker John Boehner sounded unusually befuddled opposing Obama’s move. “If you don’t have a job, you don’t qualify for overtime. So what do you get out of it? You get nothing,” he told the Washington Post. “The president’s policies are making it difficult for employers to expand employment. And until the president’s policies get out of the way, employers are going to continue to sit on their hands.”

The president’s policies are in fact making it harder for employers to exploit their workers. That’s all. As Jared Bernstein told the New York Times. “I think a potential side effect is that you may see more hiring in order to avoid overtime costs, which would be an awfully good thing right about now."

Or you’ll see higher wages, which would also be an awfully good thing. One of the major causes of rising income inequality is that back in the 1970s, rising productivity suddenly became detached from rising wages. For decades — since the labor-rights reforms and social welfare advances of the ’30s and ’40s — the two lines climbed in tandem, with higher productivity translating into higher paychecks. The two came apart, in what’s become known as “the great divergence,” at the same time as income inequality began to climb. There are many reasons for the productivity-wage split, including a stagnant minimum wage, declining union membership, and weaker labor rights overall – including less compensated overtime.

Republicans no longer accept that it was government intervention in the economy, first in the Progressive era and then, more forcefully, after the Great Depression, that created the greatest economic boom and the biggest middle class in history. The 40-hour work week. The weekend. Vacations. Child labor laws. The minimum wage. Social Security. Health and safety protection. All of these represented government intervention on the side of working people, to balance the playing field with exploitive employers, and to carve out a realm of family and personal life that could be protected from ceaseless labor. Progressive public policy essentially created childhood, as a time when kids who weren’t wealthy might be educated and protected from labor abuse.

These became bipartisan values, with some debating around the margins, through Richard Nixon’s administration. But then a pro-business backlash put all of those gains back on the table. Republicans are now trying to repeal the 20th century.

“The federal government, in particular, shouldn’t be involved in labor markets in any way, shape or form,” says Jeffrey Miron, economic studies director at the Cato Institute. Cato is a libertarian think tank, but Miron’s once-radical point of view is now the GOP mainstream.

We’ve seen Republicans, like friend-of-the-poor Paul Ryan, fiercely oppose even modest increases in the minimum wage – even though earlier hikes always had a decent amount of bipartisan support. In fact, more Republicans today are openly insisting there shouldn’t even be a minimum wage, from formerly sensible Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander to Texas Gov. Rick Perry and his home state ally Rep. Joe Barton. GOP Senate candidates in North Carolina and Iowa have made abolishing the minimum wage a pillar of their campaigns.

We already know Republicans hate unions, whether public or private sector. One of the hottest CPAC sessions last week focused on “the Wisconsin model” of public sector union busting, but we also saw how hard GOP elected officials in Tennessee fought a union drive among Volkswagen workers there.

Some on the right have even clamored to bring back child labor. Newt Gingrich suggested poor kids should work as janitors to earn their school lunches, in order to fight the “culture” of poverty. (Like Paul Ryan, he doesn’t seem to see that food is the best answer for hunger.) Utah’s Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee has declared federal child labor laws “unconstitutional,” while up in Maine, wingnut Gov. Paul LePage would like to lower the legal working age from 16 to 12.

I’ve never understood why Republicans believe rich people need more money to ensure they’ll work harder, but the non-rich don’t deserve such incentives. From skyrocketing CEO pay to lower tax rates, the GOP defends putting more money in the hands of rich folks as a good thing. Giving more money to working people, by contrast, only encourages slackers and moochers. The president can’t wait for Republicans to join the 21st century while they’re busy repealing the 20th. He’s right to do whatever he can to boost workers’ wages on his own.



Joan Walsh is Salon's editor-at-large, and the author of "What's the Matter With White People: Finding Our Way in the Next America." Read more of her work at Salon.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2014 10:03 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
Joan Walsh is Salon's editor-at-large, and the author of "What's the Matter With White People: Finding Our Way in the Next America." Read more of her work at Salon.


Look at that a whole book that panders to minorities rights, which are no different, despite what they claim, and promotes white guilt. A fascinating read if you like division and manipulation.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2014 10:33 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:

I dont bother with it. I 'm on the right.
I did all my hating during the kennedy administration;
well, MOST of it -- LBJ was hard to take too, but not as bad.

It was just too much wasted effort to bother hating Clinton or obama.

not worth it



David,

I'm just curious. Do you have a method as to when you hate or is it just opinion?
A gut feeling?

Doesn't seem to me that all this hate is good for a person.





0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2014 10:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:


which SHUD look like Mayberry, N.C.



You do know that was a TV show, right?

parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2014 01:21 pm
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:


which SHUD look like Mayberry, N.C.



You do know that was a TV show, right?




A TV show where the good guys never used guns. The only person with a gun was allowed to have one bullet and he kept it in his shirt pocket. David would hate living in Mayberry.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 04:25:57