• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

And Mitt Picks...

cjr72 said:
I've never made any claims as to my 'genius' and unlike you I've never questioned anybody else's intelligence on this forum either. ...
Click to expand...

Well, you made a partial correction.

Your source concerning my previous posts regarding intelligence is not clear.

I cited articles in a locked thread that were not favorable concerning attributes of conservative philosophy and the explanation on why held that I agreed with.

If one questions their views based on discussions here that's a good thing as no one is-all-knowing all-the-time.

Anyone is free to dispute the cited articles or my agreement with same.

Per your previous claim concerning one study "That's interesting considering that I have an IQ of 142 which puts me in the genius category." which I gather is your way of disputing cited article based on a smaller population sample size, shorter study time frame and unorthodox study methodology.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Oh, so your Democratic biased source is fine, but my Republican biased source isn't? Hypocrisy much? Nevertheless the facts are true. The Obama campaign shut down two publicly funded funded beaches in the middle of tourist season so the President could raise money for his own campaign. How is that not using your office for public gain? He could've held the fundraiser anywhere else. There's a big difference. And at least the Romney campaign pays it's bills. Just saying.

Both parties do do the exact same thing. Yet you seem to give Obama a free pass and rake Romney over the coals. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Well, just look at the columnists of your main source. Looks a bit far to the right. Columnists | Daily Political Not to mention Fox News, a branch of the Republican Party.

Romney multibillionaires $ funders would have privatized the beach, but Obama is stuck with raising money from mere multimillionaires $ that are too poor to own the beach.

So of course his opponents want Obama to just stay in the White House, as those pesky Secret Service might inconvenience some, due the wing nuts agitating for his assassination.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Likewise it should not be possible to lay someone off without adequate compensation. And if possible, if the employees are needed and the economy is in trouble, it should be possible to have the workers put on less hours and still have an adequate income.
Click to expand...

Who decides how much people should be compensated and who pays the tab? Of course it should be possible to lay people off without paying them money. Are you kidding me?

I should be able to hire and fire at will and when times are slow, lay you off without any pay.
 
Jordan said:
How do you want the rent to be made that way? I am a landlord and I have to avoid running at a loss, so I raise the rent to keep in line with property payments, taxes and maintenance etcetera. Do you want somebody to restrict me from doing that? If so I think there will be a lot of blighted areas coming along even worse than now because owners will just not come along to invest in properties.
Click to expand...

Rent supplement. Don't worry I wouldn't be one for imposing Chavez-esque price controls.
 
ElasticNinja said:
There is a responsibility on both the employer and employee of course. While in the the US employees are very much at the will of their employer and can be done with as their paymaster wishes, in other parts of the world it is almost the other way around, unfortunately.
There needs to be a culture of employee/employee responsibility, backed up by legislation. It should not be impossible to fire someone. Likewise it should not be possible to lay someone off without adequate compensation. And if possible, if the employees are needed and the economy is in trouble, it should be possible to have the workers put on less hours and still have an adequate income.
Click to expand...

The problem is that an employee's goals are often at odds with an employer and vice versa. If I run the Acme brick company, it's in my best interests, in general, to retain employees. Cuts down on training costs. Experienced employees tend to work more efficiently. I benefit from having experts inside my organization. As an employee for the Acme brick company, it doesn't necessarily benefit me to stick around forever at the company. I want career success, money, good benefits, a nice place to work, etc.... Where I get those things isn't really relevant.

The company I work for recently made some scheduling changes at one of it's other sites that irked employees. It annoyed them enough some of them quit, walked across the street and joined the competitor. They had every right to do that. The changes the company made were with the in the best interests of the company. The employees leaving were in their personal best interests. Employees pursue their interests. Employers pursue their interests. Sometimes these interests are the same, sometimes they're not.

Furthermore, with low wages in the US it can be quite difficult to purchase homes in the first place. People still want to own property and may end up with very little financial leeway. If wages are not going to rise, renting needs to be made more attractive, and borrowing safer. I find the culture of simply "posting back the keys" very odd and unfortunate, and also the ruthlessness of debt collectors and lenders.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get the stats that wages in the US are low. If you look at the median household income and adjust it for things like cost of living, the average US household has more purchasing power than any other country in the world except for Luxembourg. The median income across the world is less than $10k a year. Americans at the poverty line make twice that in general. America, in general, is a very wealthy country. We are also a country where we tend to overspend and over reach financially.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Per your previous claim concerning one study "That's interesting considering that I have an IQ of 142 which puts me in the genius category." which I gather is your way of disputing cited article based on a smaller population sample size, shorter study time frame and unorthodox study methodology.
Click to expand...
So, you grabbed the quote, but failed to see who said it? :rolleyes:
 
ElasticNinja said:
If the company has the money, they should pay a fixed amount based on years worked, there should also be statutory redundancy from the state.
Click to expand...

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. It's your responsibility to look out for you, not the state's. It's one thing if you're mentally incompetent or physically infirm or something, but that's obviously not the case here. Here we are talking about able bodied people who are obviously capable of doing work.
 
Ryan is a wing nut installed by the tea party and the Koch brothers to baby-sit Romney in case he wins to make sure his more moderate tendencies don't rear their ugly head. Romney is a gutless wonder who can't even stand up to the fringes of his party and pick his own running mate. Pathetic.
 
Gmash said:
Ryan is a wing nut installed by the tea party and the Koch brothers to baby-sit Romney in case he wins to make sure his more moderate tendencies don't rear their ugly head. Romney is a gutless wonder who can't even stand up to the fringes of his party and pick his own running mate. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I believe you're wrong on this. I think Ryan was the first one to say yes. I can't imagine anyone that spends four years running for president could be so boring, so corrupt ($100 million IRA), yet still get a nomination.
 
I think Santorum's success proves that the Republican candidate must cater to the right wing of the party. Romney will have a hard enough time being elected. If he doesn't cater to the right wing, he will certainly fail.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I'm not sure where you get the stats that wages in the US are low. If you look at the median household income and adjust it for things like cost of living, the average US household has more purchasing power than any other country in the world except for Luxembourg. The median income across the world is less than $10k a year. Americans at the poverty line make twice that in general. America, in general, is a very wealthy country. We are also a country where we tend to overspend and over reach financially.
Click to expand...
Net wages for the bottom two quintiles are quite low. Everything is distorted by higher wages for the top two quintiles.
A.Nonymous said:
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. It's your responsibility to look out for you, not the state's. It's one thing if you're mentally incompetent or physically infirm or something, but that's obviously not the case here. Here we are talking about able bodied people who are obviously capable of doing work.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about people who were laid off.
 
TJGoSurf said:
I believe you're wrong on this. I think Ryan was the first one to say yes. I can't imagine anyone that spends four years running for president could be so boring, so corrupt ($100 million IRA), yet still get a nomination.
Click to expand...
Well, he was getting major pressure from the right to pick Ryan, including from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Plus, Portman and Rubio both seemed to be pretty much campaigning for the spot. Either one would have been a more logical choice.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I think Santorum's success proves that the Republican candidate must cater to the right wing of the party. Romney will have a hard enough time being elected. If he doesn't cater to the right wing, he will certainly fail.
Click to expand...
Primaries are totally different from the general election. The right will turn out to vote for anybody not named Obama.
 
ElasticNinja said:
I'm talking about people who were laid off.
Click to expand...

Right. That's who I'm talking about. We're talking about people who are able bodied and capable of working. It is their responsibility to take care of themselves. It's not their employers responsibility to take care of them.

Gmash said:
Primaries are totally different from the general election. The right will turn out to vote for anybody not named Obama.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I'm not sure. There's a risk they will simply stay home or worse, go vote for a 3rd party. Romney cannot win without them voting for him.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
As you are a self proclaimed genius, http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/524765-romney-vs-obama-22.html#post4790148
Click to expand...

OutofDate1980 said:
Per your previous claim concerning one study "That's interesting considering that I have an IQ of 142 which puts me in the genius category." which I gather is your way of disputing cited article based on a smaller population sample size, shorter study time frame and unorthodox study methodology.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on attributing that post by someone else to me?
 
A.Nonymous said:
Possibly. I'm not sure. There's a risk they will simply stay home or worse, go vote for a 3rd party. Romney cannot win without them voting for him.
Click to expand...



I'm afraid that Ron Paul will run as an independant and steal a lot of votes from Romney like Perot did to George H.W. Bush way back when.
 
ElasticNinja said:
If the company has the money, they should pay a fixed amount based on years worked, there should also be statutory redundancy from the state.
Click to expand...
I think what you are referring to is called Severence pay or package. It's up to the company if they want to give it to employees or not when laid off. Some do and some don't.

I guess unemployment insurance is coming from the company and state (extensions).
 
saptech said:
I think what you are referring to is called Severence pay or package. It's up to the company if they want to give it to employees or not when laid off. Some do and some don't.

I guess unemployment insurance is coming from the company and state (extensions).
Click to expand...

I already have unemployment insurance. It's called putting X dollars in the bank every single paycheck for a rainy day.
 
A few harsh words on Romney/Ryan from a Reaganite

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2

"Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom