Does skin color trump reasoning ?

apple0154 said:
You're sounding awfully socialist. You expect Obama to attract foreign investment. You expect government to get involved in business. And as soon as the government does get involved the loony Right bitch and whine.

You're obviously content with a president that does nothing but compaign, play golf and shoot hoops....


As for Matthews' comments about vision and imagination and his comments about "needing something to root for" we've seen the results of the last President's vision and imagination and "rooting". After all the lies and deception the majority were rooting for wars.
Libya has nothing to do this

Get people involved in spying on their neighbors. Manufacture a mission, a crisis, a purpose. Keep their mind off the financial fiasco that was building. Focus their attention on a crisis while food prices rose and people lost jobs and homes.
The lefts Class War is not news...


There were more important things to concentrate on like if your neighbor had booby-trapped their garbage can or they were a sleeper cell or a den of foreign agents. We've seen that "rooting" ends up being the homeless rooting through garbage bins for dinner.
Obamas just saying "if you see something, say something".....

Intelligent people don't need empty slogans. Obama promised change and he succeeded in getting health care passed, an accomplishment that evaded Presidents for generations. Obama knows we're not at a ball game shouting jingles or catch phrases like "Go, Giants, Go!!!" The loony, if not outright dangerous, Right's slogans were, "war on terror, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists".....ad nauseam while the country came to the edge of financial collapse.

Its that "hopey changey" thing, huh....or is it "Pass this bill" chant.....how about "tax cuts for the rich" or "pay your fair share".....
There is so many lefty slogans and chants, it boggles the mind....

If Obama gets a majority second term people won't have to "root" or shout slogans. Changes will be implemented putting the country on a sustainable path and with troop withdrawal around the world it will result in a more peaceful planet for everyone. That's what needs to be comprehended.
Click to expand...

If Obama gets in again, the people won't have to "root" or shout slogans...they'll be too busy rooting in garbage cans for food and begging on the streets, and living in
tents by necessity instead of for protests...

But look at the bright side, I'll bet abortions go up 2 or 3 hundred %........assuming they are free.
 
bravo said:
If Obama gets in again, the people won't have to "root" or shout slogans...they'll be too busy rooting in garbage cans for food and begging on the streets, and living in
tents by necessity instead of for protests...

But look at the bright side, I'll bet abortions go up 2 or 3 hundred %........assuming they are free.
Click to expand...

Proof that you're a lunatic.
 
Alias said:
Apple: "You're sounding awfully socialist. You expect Obama to attract foreign investment. You expect government to get involved in business. And as soon as the government does get involved the loony Right bitch and whine."

That shows you have a very superficial understanding of how things work. The problem isn't govt. The problem is how govt is used by this administration. We have people running this country who don't understand how jobs are created in the private sector. They're academics. They teach. They've never actually built a business or ran one. They're govt adademia dweebs. We can't afford their failures any longer.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is wages. If people can be paid less somewhere else that's where the company will go. The majority of businesses are automated. Automobiles, machinery, appliances....the list goes on. The main requirement expected from employees is their ability to run a machine. That's why all the call centers are overseas. Doesn't take a lot of skill to answer a phone.

Innovation is necessary and that's the individual companies' job.
 
bravo said:
If Obama gets in again, the people won't have to "root" or shout slogans...they'll be too busy rooting in garbage cans for food and begging on the streets, and living in
tents by necessity instead of for protests...

But look at the bright side, I'll bet abortions go up 2 or 3 hundred %........assuming they are free.
Click to expand...

Well, tents do tend to bring out the amorous side of folks and let's not forget once the sun sets it's dark.
 
apple0154 said:
The bottom line is wages. If people can be paid less somewhere else that's where the company will go. The majority of businesses are automated. Automobiles, machinery, appliances....the list goes on. The main requirement expected from employees is their ability to run a machine. That's why all the call centers are overseas. Doesn't take a lot of skill to answer a phone.

Innovation is necessary and that's the individual companies' job.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should get a job with a company as an innovator or keep educating yourself to make a better living. It's not a businesses job to give you a job.
 
Alias said:
Then perhaps you should get a job with a company as an innovator or keep educating yourself to make a better living. It's not a businesses job to give you a job.
Click to expand...

In msg 39 you wrote,
That shows you have a very superficial understanding of how things work. The problem isn't govt. The problem is how govt is used by this administration. We have people running this country who don't understand how jobs are created in the private sector. They're academics. They teach. They've never actually built a business or ran one. They're govt adademia dweebs. We can't afford their failures any longer.
Click to expand...

It is you who lacks understanding when it comes to business and the world, in general. Free trade along with mutual cooperation between countries has changed the rules. Companies are going to move to places where labor is cheaper and now they have the opportunity to do so. That, coupled with automation, has resulted in fewer jobs. There is less need for everyone to work. The problem is we haven't changed/adapted to the new reality. Typical jobs, like factory and farm work, have almost disappeared. It's like what happened with the invention of the automobile although that change took longer as roads were required to be built. From buggy wheels to saddles those jobs disappeared and never returned.

The point being the "work and earn money" paradigm is shifting. It's not necessary for everyone to work as it was in the days before technological advancements.

Here's an example. Picture a family on a farm. The father and two sons each have a horse pulling a plow. Then Dad buys a tractor. The work the two sons used to do is no longer required. There is still the same amount of food produced but it only requires one person to produce it. Unless there is some other job required to be done there is nothing for the sons to do. Are the two sons forbidden to eat because they didn't work?

The point is technological advancements have reduced man's burden which is the whole idea. Society has to figure out a fair way to ensure everyone has basic needs met without requiring them to depend on having a job. When everything was done manually there was always a job to be had out of sheer necessity. Those days are gone.

As Obama said we have to consider a fundamental change in how we think and go about living. When thinking about impoverished countries even if we supplied tractors and other farm equipment so they could become self-sufficient only a small portion of the people would benefit and they would be the ones who owned the equipment. What job could the average Somalian do to earn money to buy food?

That's why government programs are necessary. People have to have access to basic products and services regardless of whether they have a job because as society progresses fewer and fewer people will be required to work. And that's the way it should be. That's the point of progress.

That said it doesn't necessarily mean some people work and others don't. Perhaps job sharing is a solution. Or volunteering? One world government? Planet planning?
 
apple0154 said:
In msg 39 you wrote,

It is you who lacks understanding when it comes to business and the world, in general. Free trade along with mutual cooperation between countries has changed the rules. Companies are going to move to places where labor is cheaper and now they have the opportunity to do so. That, coupled with automation, has resulted in fewer jobs. There is less need for everyone to work. The problem is we haven't changed/adapted to the new reality. Typical jobs, like factory and farm work, have almost disappeared. It's like what happened with the invention of the automobile although that change took longer as roads were required to be built. From buggy wheels to saddles those jobs disappeared and never returned.

The point being the "work and earn money" paradigm is shifting. It's not necessary for everyone to work as it was in the days before technological advancements.

Here's an example. Picture a family on a farm. The father and two sons each have a horse pulling a plow. Then Dad buys a tractor. The work the two sons used to do is no longer required. There is still the same amount of food produced but it only requires one person to produce it. Unless there is some other job required to be done there is nothing for the sons to do. Are the two sons forbidden to eat because they didn't work?

The point is technological advancements have reduced man's burden which is the whole idea. Society has to figure out a fair way to ensure everyone has basic needs met without requiring them to depend on having a job. When everything was done manually there was always a job to be had out of sheer necessity. Those days are gone.

As Obama said we have to consider a fundamental change in how we think and go about living. When thinking about impoverished countries even if we supplied tractors and other farm equipment so they could become self-sufficient only a small portion of the people would benefit and they would be the ones who owned the equipment. What job could the average Somalian do to earn money to buy food?

That's why government programs are necessary. People have to have access to basic products and services regardless of whether they have a job because as society progresses fewer and fewer people will be required to work. And that's the way it should be. That's the point of progress.

That said it doesn't necessarily mean some people work and others don't. Perhaps job sharing is a solution. Or volunteering? One world government? Planet planning?
Click to expand...


Were you demented before you started drinking the Koolade or is your dementia the result ?
 
apple0154 said:
In msg 39 you wrote,

It is you who lacks understanding when it comes to business and the world, in general. Free trade along with mutual cooperation between countries has changed the rules. Companies are going to move to places where labor is cheaper and now they have the opportunity to do so. That, coupled with automation, has resulted in fewer jobs. There is less need for everyone to work. The problem is we haven't changed/adapted to the new reality. Typical jobs, like factory and farm work, have almost disappeared. It's like what happened with the invention of the automobile although that change took longer as roads were required to be built. From buggy wheels to saddles those jobs disappeared and never returned.

The point being the "work and earn money" paradigm is shifting. It's not necessary for everyone to work as it was in the days before technological advancements.

Here's an example. Picture a family on a farm. The father and two sons each have a horse pulling a plow. Then Dad buys a tractor. The work the two sons used to do is no longer required. There is still the same amount of food produced but it only requires one person to produce it. Unless there is some other job required to be done there is nothing for the sons to do. Are the two sons forbidden to eat because they didn't work?

The point is technological advancements have reduced man's burden which is the whole idea. Society has to figure out a fair way to ensure everyone has basic needs met without requiring them to depend on having a job. When everything was done manually there was always a job to be had out of sheer necessity. Those days are gone.

As Obama said we have to consider a fundamental change in how we think and go about living. When thinking about impoverished countries even if we supplied tractors and other farm equipment so they could become self-sufficient only a small portion of the people would benefit and they would be the ones who owned the equipment. What job could the average Somalian do to earn money to buy food?

That's why government programs are necessary. People have to have access to basic products and services regardless of whether they have a job because as society progresses fewer and fewer people will be required to work. And that's the way it should be. That's the point of progress.

That said it doesn't necessarily mean some people work and others don't. Perhaps job sharing is a solution. Or volunteering? One world government? Planet planning?
Click to expand...

Fewer people working isn't progress. Disaster is right around the corner.
 
Alias said:
Fewer people working isn't progress. Disaster is right around the corner.
Click to expand...

Fewer people being required to work in order to provide basic necessities is progress. Before our technological advancements it was necessary for everyone to work. One person could not dig a garden and plant and harvest to provide for 100 people. People had to work in order to live. That is no longer necessary today.

The problem isn't that there's a shortage if some people don't work. The problem or question is how do we divide the labor that's required. How do we separate the need to acquire money to purchase goods when it's not necessary for everyone to work in order to produce those goods?
 
apple0154 said:
Fewer people being required to work in order to provide basic necessities is progress. Before our technological advancements it was necessary for everyone to work. One person could not dig a garden and plant and harvest to provide for 100 people. People had to work in order to live. That is no longer necessary today.

The problem isn't that there's a shortage if some people don't work. The problem or question is how do we divide the labor that's required. How do we separate the need to acquire money to purchase goods when it's not necessary for everyone to work in order to produce those goods?
Click to expand...

Before our technological advancements it was necessary for everyone to work.

People had to work in order to live. That is no longer necessary today.


Thats so.....so.....so........progressive....

And which one are you Apple......the worker or the .... parasite....
Never mind.......being a Liberal "tax the rich" Democrat, you're obviously the parasite.....
 
bravo said:
Before our technological advancements it was necessary for everyone to work.

People had to work in order to live. That is no longer necessary today.


Thats so.....so.....so........progressive....

And which one are you Apple......the worker or the .... parasite....
Never mind.......being a Liberal "tax the rich" Democrat, you're obviously the parasite.....
Click to expand...

You're confused, as usual. How do you think the vast majority of people became wealthy? They become wealthy off the work of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top