New Obama Campaign Slogan has strong ties to Socialism

[UncleBuck]

Nope. The business's right, to not be denied it's right to offer a dangerous job, trumps that of an individuals right to make demands on how a business operates. With that said, if you think an individual has the right to deny a business it's right, you got a screw loose.

If the worker signed up for a job they knew was dangerous, they made the risk. I wonder what you think of 401k's? Same thing... you make the investment, you take the risk. It's not the company's or bank's job to ensure you anything if you willingly signed up for a risk. Self entitlement is not an investment.

Hidden dangers are a different topic, but I've already stated that.

ok, so we've established that you believe that the right of a worker to be reasonably safe and secure is not as important as the right of the business to make an extra buck.

in your batshit insane mind, a coal mining company has a right to ignore safety regulations that could cost them a few extra dollars, even if it means an increased risk of death for their employees.

wow, just wow.

 

[InCognition]

that's all you did, you asserted. you never explained anything about how i was taking ron paul's bill which calls homosexuality unacceptable out of context.

There is no point discussing your delusional fallacy of Ron Paul's supposed discrimination.

He voted no on HJ Res 88 (Jully 18, 2006), which would essentially ban same sex marriage. Yet you obviously think he has some sort of resentment towards gays. - http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/ron-paul. You're a wackjob.

Remember, you believe Ron Paul is a racist, yet he voted for MLK day in 1979. - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1979/h624. You're a wackjob again, plain and simple.

You have no credibility regarding your discrimination beliefs, because they are just that... beliefs. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

 

[UncleBuck]

There is no point discussing your delusional fallacy of Ron Paul's supposed discrimination.

He voted no on HJ Res 88 (Jully 18, 2006), which would essentially ban same sex marriage. Yet you obviously think he has some sort of resentment towards gays. - http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/ron-paul. You're a wackjob.

Remember, you believe Ron Paul is a racist, yet he voted for MLK day in 1979. - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1979/h624. You're a wackjob again, plain and simple.

You have no credibility regarding your discrimination beliefs, because they are just that... beliefs. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

when did i say ron paul was a racist? all i ever did was mention the fact that ronnie profited off his racist newsletters, then defended them as his own writings, then said he lied about them.

i did say ron paul is a bigot.

ya know, when you write a bill calling homosexuality unacceptable, it makes you a bigot. especially when you try to impose that bill on the american people.

ron paul to this day supports DOMA, which is in clear violation of the 14th amendment of the constitution. it means that gay soldiers are not eligible for the same benefits as a straight soldier. i thought this guy masturbated to the constitution? apparently not. he just masturbates to the tenth amendment. which is the only reason why he voted against a federal ban on gay marriage, dipshit.

just curious, do you also share the view that homosexuality is unacceptable?

 

[InCognition]

ok, so we've established that you believe that the right of a worker to be reasonably safe and secure is not as important as the right of the business to make an extra buck.

in your batshit insane mind, a coal mining company has a right to ignore safety regulations that could cost them a few extra dollars, even if it means an increased risk of death for their employees.

wow, just wow.

Legitimate rationale hurts, boggles, and torments the feeble mind doesn't it?

Not sure how many more times I have to tell you, but and individual chooses at free will, to take a risk in voluntarily signing up for a dangerous job, at there own risk. Don't like risk, you don't do the job.

No one ever said that coal mine should ignore safety regulations. But a coal mine owner should have the right to conduct his mine the way he sees fit, as well as the workers should conduct their free right to choose working in that dangerous mine potentially dangerous mine.

Who told anyone working in a mine should be safe anyways, because it's not.

 

[InCognition]

when did i say ron paul was a racist? all i ever did was mention the fact that ronnie profited off his racist newsletters, then defended them as his own writings, then said he lied about them.

i did say ron paul is a bigot.

ya know, when you write a bill calling homosexuality unacceptable, it makes you a bigot. especially when you try to impose that bill on the american people.

ron paul to this day supports DOMA, which is in clear violation of the 14th amendment of the constitution. it means that gay soldiers are not eligible for the same benefits as a straight soldier. i thought this guy masturbated to the constitution? apparently not. he just masturbates to the tenth amendment. which is the only reason why he voted against a federal ban on gay marriage, dipshit.

just curious, do you also share the view that homosexuality is unacceptable?

You have said he is a racist. Don't make me quote you on it, you have.

More "facts" from the man himself, yet no unbiased links to prove anything of what you just stated. One would think you would get tired of your reckless claims.

In regards to homosexuality... it's not something that even registers in my head as a judgement upon an individual. A human being is a human first. How they conduct themselves sexually is their right, as long as they do not interfere directly or indirectly, financially or physically, upon the rights of another human being.

 

[UncleBuck]

Legitimate rationale hurts, boggles, and torments the feeble mind doesn't it?

Not sure how many more times I have to tell you, but and individual chooses at free will, to take a risk in voluntarily signing up for a dangerous job, at there own risk. Don't like risk, you don't do the job.

No one ever said that coal mine should ignore safety regulations. But a coal mine owner should have the right to conduct his mine the way he sees fit, as well as the workers should conduct their free right to choose working in that dangerous mine potentially dangerous mine.

Who told anyone working in a mine should be safe anyways, because it's not.

so, if i want to work in a mine, i need to first become an expert on mine safety? if i want to work on an oil rig, i have to become an expert on oil rig safety?

wow, you expect a lot out of the average blue collar worker. these people take these jobs because they are not the types with college degrees and extensive experience in the field and can not make determinations as to the safety of their work environment.

many times, the only employment in the area will be at a place like an oil rig, or a coal mine, or some similarly dangerous enterprise. according to you, people should be forced to take dangerous jobs because they were born into an arbitrary location and god forbid the business owner try to keep his employees from dying needlessly.

ya know, they have a term for needlessly putting someone's life at risk: reckless endangerment.

you would do well to move to somalia. it sounds like your utopia is waiting for you over there.

 

[UncleBuck]

More "facts" from the man himself, yet no unbiased links to prove anything of what you just stated. One would think you would get tired of your reckless claims.

In regards to homosexuality... it's not something that even registers in my head as a judgement upon an individual. A human being is a human first. How they conduct themselves sexually is their right, as long as they do not interfere directly or indirectly upon the rights of another human being.

dude, i already posted the full bill and the relevant section where he calls homosexuality unacceptable. quit your crying.

i guess you don't share ronald the bigot's view that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. good for you.

 

[bundee1]

Retail/customer service workers need unions. They work shit hours for decreasing benefits and low pay. Google shift work disorder and diabetes. Lawsuits are starting to spring up. Walmart has a great history with all of this. People cant get steady full time work or work late hours one day only to turn around and work at 5 am the next.

I dont think Incognition has worked a day in his life.

 

[UncleBuck]

Retail/customer service workers need unions. They work shit hours for decreasing benefits and low pay. Google shift work disorder and diabetes. Lawsuits are starting to spring up. Walmart has a great history with all of this. People cant get steady full time work or work late hours one day only to turn around and work at 5 am the next.

I dont think Incognition has worked a day in his life.

my guess is that he's about 17 years old living at home with mommy and daddy, i can't think of any other reason to do a grow like he did.

https://www.rollitup.org/stealth-micro-cab-growing/505355-stealth-pc-case-first-grow.html

 

[InCognition]

dude, i already posted the full bill and the relevant section where he calls homosexuality unacceptable. quit your crying.

i guess you don't share ronald the bigot's view that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. good for you.

Do you have a problem with people conducting their own philosophy on morality, which is an individual right? That would be a problem itself too you know? And to rephrase, your problem is not with him forcing his belief on others, because the idea that he is forcing a discriminatory idea upon people is not true. He can preach his beliefs all he wants, that is a right too. Nothing discriminatory is being forced upon others by himself. So you should quit your cry in regards to that belief. Crying isn't going to make your lunacy true.

So you're complimenting me on my personal beliefs, as if you're some authority to judge, and make an approval, of how an individual facilitates their beliefs on morality? That is just as wrong as discrimination.

Morality is a belief and nothing more.

 

[UncleBuck]

Do you have a problem with people conducting their own philosophy on morality, which is an individual right?

i have no problem with people conducting their own personal morality, as long as it does not harm others.

And to rephrase, your problem is not with him forcing his belief on others, because the idea that he is forcing a discriminatory idea upon people is not true.

false. my problem is precisely with the fact that ron paul wants to legislate his anti-gay bigoted morality upon others.

ron paul wants to cut federal funding to any entity that suggests that homosexuality is OK, but not for entities that suggest heterosexuality is OK. that is discrimination, plain and simple, by definition. he put it into a bill and tried to get it passed for all to abide by. that is trying to legislate your morality onto others.

not cool.

Nothing discriminatory is being forced upon others by himself.

you're right, nothing IS being forced. he only tried to and failed, like he does with most everything in his career as a lifelong politician. it's because ron paul is a bigoted piece of shit who fails at every possible turn.

 

[Mr Neutron]

you would do well to move to somalia. it sounds like your utopia is waiting for you over there.

... and yours would be.................................. North Korea?

 

[UncleBuck]

... and yours would be.................................. North Korea?

my utopia is right here in oregon, minus the somewhat excessive rain.

can't have it all i guess.

 

[InCognition]

i have no problem with people conducting their own personal morality, as long as it does not harm others.



false. my problem is precisely with the fact that ron paul wants to legislate his anti-gay bigoted morality upon others.

ron paul wants to cut federal funding to any entity that suggests that homosexuality is OK, but not for entities that suggest heterosexuality is OK. that is discrimination, plain and simple, by definition. he put it into a bill and tried to get it passed for all to abide by. that is trying to legislate your morality onto others.

not cool.



you're right, nothing IS being forced. he only tried to and failed, like he does with most everything in his career as a lifelong politician. it's because ron paul is a bigoted piece of shit who fails at every possible turn.

You may not have a problem with people conducting their own personal morality, but you obviously have a problem when they verbalize it.

Again you can't see under the surface of the bill, because your mind is severely clouded with ignorance. The bill ultimately has nothing to do with legislating anti-homosexuality, it has everything to do with preventing money from being wasted on a useless organization. And if you wan't to argue that an organization, that promotes or demotes any form of sexuality, somehow has a right to be government funded, you've got a screw loose. Sexuality organizations of any form are not worthy of government assistance, period.

As far as "heterosexual organizations", I'm sure you could name off a few thousand that receive government assistance. As long as a male and female can be part of an organization I guess it would qualify... but that would be the most ignorant and biased way to view the subject from, because lets face it, heterosexuality is 1000% more common practice among society than homosexuality. To ban assistance towards "heterosexual" organizations would ban a whole lot of assistance towards organizations, that ultimately have no tie to intentionally promoting heterosexuality.

And I'm not sure if you realize, but your fleets of false claims on him are bigotry, so it's hysterical that you're calling him a bigot. I need some government assistance over here on my popcorn & butter supply, because not resupplying me just wouldn't be fair after this reading.

 

[InCognition]

so, if i want to work in a mine, i need to first become an expert on mine safety? if i want to work on an oil rig, i have to become an expert on oil rig safety?

wow, you expect a lot out of the average blue collar worker. these people take these jobs because they are not the types with college degrees and extensive experience in the field and can not make determinations as to the safety of their work environment.

many times, the only employment in the area will be at a place like an oil rig, or a coal mine, or some similarly dangerous enterprise. according to you, people should be forced to take dangerous jobs because they were born into an arbitrary location and god forbid the business owner try to keep his employees from dying needlessly.

ya know, they have a term for needlessly putting someone's life at risk: reckless endangerment.

you would do well to move to somalia. it sounds like your utopia is waiting for you over there.

You don't have the right to a job because you're born in a specific area. That is what we call extortion.

If a business owner does not wan't to hire you, you don't have the right to tell them, that they have to hire you, just because it's not convenient for you to seek work elsewhere. That's the exact opposite of "fairness", in case you haven't comprehended that.

 

[UncleBuck]

You don't have the right to a job because you're born in a specific area. That is what we call extortion.

you are a blithering idiot. where did i say that being born somewhere gave someone a right to a job?

what i did say, and what you are too mentally retarded to understand, apparently, is that often the only jobs in an area are inherently dangerous.

learn to fucking read, kiddo.

If a business owner does not wan't to hire you, you don't have the right to tell them, that they have to hire you, just because it's not convenient for you to seek work elsewhere. That's the exact opposite of "fairness", in case you haven't comprehended that.

again, learn to fucking read. i never made any of the claims you think i'm making.

if you want to continue this sidebar by responding to what i actually say, go ahead. but you have the reading comprehension of a mentally handicapped wombat.

 

[UncleBuck]

You may not have a problem with people conducting their own personal morality, but you obviously have a problem when they verbalize it.

ronald the bigot did not simply verbalize his morality, he tried to legislate his discriminatory anti-gay bigotry onto society.

Again you can't see under the surface of the bill, because your mind is severely clouded with ignorance. The bill ultimately has nothing to do with legislating anti-homosexuality, it has everything to do with preventing money from being wasted on a useless organization. And if you wan't to argue that an organization, that promotes or demotes any form of sexuality, somehow has a right to be government funded, you've got a screw loose. Sexuality organizations of any form are not worthy of government assistance, period.

if that is the case, why did ronald the bigot only seek to stop federal funding from entities that even merely suggest that homosexuality could be acceptable? why did he not also include entities that suggest that heterosexuality may be acceptable?

riddle me that, wombat boy.

And I'm not sure if you realize, but your fleets of false claims on him are bigotry, so it's hysterical that you're calling him a bigot. I need some government assistance over here on my popcorn & butter supply, because not resupplying me just wouldn't be fair after this reading.

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

here are some facts for you, ronald the bigot is not a racial or ethnic group, wombat boy. he is a single person. furthermore, i am not devoted to my opinion about him writing a bigoted bill because him writing that bill is not opinion, it is fact. known history.

wake me up when you get to the intellectual level of this wombat.

 

[abandonconflict]

You may not have a problem with people conducting their own personal morality, but you obviously have a problem when they verbalize it.

Again you can't see under the surface of the bill, because your mind is severely clouded with ignorance. The bill ultimately has nothing to do with legislating anti-homosexuality, it has everything to do with preventing money from being wasted on a useless organization. And if you wan't to argue that an organization, that promotes or demotes any form of sexuality, somehow has a right to be government funded, you've got a screw loose. Sexuality organizations of any form are not worthy of government assistance, period.

As far as "heterosexual organizations", I'm sure you could name off a few thousand that receive government assistance. As long as a male and female can be part of an organization I guess it would qualify... but that would be the most ignorant and biased way to view the subject from, because lets face it, heterosexuality is 1000% more common practice among society than homosexuality. To ban assistance towards "heterosexual" organizations would ban a whole lot of assistance towards organizations, that ultimately have no tie to intentionally promoting heterosexuality.

And I'm not sure if you realize, but your fleets of false claims on him are bigotry, so it's hysterical that you're calling him a bigot. I need some government assistance over here on my popcorn & butter supply, because not resupplying me just wouldn't be fair after this reading.

He earmarked billions of federal cash to his own district for bullshit. He picks now of all times to push this legislation because DADT was just dropped and there needs to be research to keep the military going smoothly now that homosexual troops aren't being discriminated against.

 

[kelly4]

and my illegal compadres worked just as hard, if not harder than me, and got about half my pay (I was getting minimum wage), and got screwed out of their tips (the busboys would get a percentage of tips).

I personally think that illegals ought to get paid the same amount, if not more, than your stereotypical lazy ass white boy b/c they definitely work harder

If they don't like it, they can go home. Then you wouldn't have to worry about illegal criminals getting screwed out of tips.

You also mention they may have worked harder than you. Do you know what that makes you?

THE stereotypical lazy ass white boy. LOL!

 

[deprave]

He earmarked billions of federal cash to his own district

Explain whats the problem with that?