What would you consider a living wage,, ???? Last job I had paid 10 an hour I did well ,,, but most I seen lately ain't worth that. don't like the pay find a better job ,, an employer can find someone that is hungry enough too work for less,..

I did, in my first or second post. All you had to do was read it. Are you not capable of that?

And the links to Trump's lies have been posted. If you knew how to debate you would follow each of those lies and try to rebut them. But, for all your slamming others, it is you who has no clue how debate works.

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;2460349][QUOTE=yubba;2460333]and again what lies,, the lies the fake media said he said be specific ,, I wasn't aware that there was lies worse than Hillary's???see how easy it is,, proved you wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu2VsZPplug

you do a find job of slamming me,, there's been a hundred posts where link to Trump's lie I haven't seen it.???

And my link showed the exact opposite. You've proved nothing.

But I asked about your claim of "my brethren", and "my violence". I ask again, what are you talking about?

I didn't say "a hundred posts". There were only a few. But you "haven't seen it" even though you responded to those very posts.

In fact you responded with "Sorry don't read the fake news of that liberal rag..". If you don't read it, how can you know it's fake?

The living wage is defined as the minimum income for a worker to meet their basic needs, such as shelter, clothing and nutrition. Obviously in America that varies from state to state, but let's take Texas for example, Madison County to be precise. According to this site the living wage for a single adult is $9.25 per hour.
As for someone hungry enough to work for less, such a system is unsustainable because unless you want the country to exist in a permanent state of semi-decline then the goal is to stop there being people hungry enough to work for less. In fact, I would go as far as to say part of the reason that the immigration problem is such a problem is because of that kind of attitude, because there is no incentive for an employer to pay a higher wage when he can just import a Mexican to work for that lower wage, or indeed less. What happens when you run out of Mexicans? :hmmm:

Interestingly we have two legal terms in Russia "minimal wage" and "living income". Minimal wage is used in many places, ie not only to determine wages but also fines, taxes and other stuff. Living income is determine as the cost of a basket of goods. It is determined per region due to the differing prices. For example the working person gets a basket of:
- 100kgs of potatoes.
- 126,5kgs of bread, pasta and such.
- 60kgs of fruit.
- 58kgs of meat.
- 210 eggs.
and so on and so forth.

The labour code states that the minimal wage has to be higher or equal to the living income with that norm being in the federal law, however said federal law was not passed yet and the minimal wage is below the living income.

Regarding Steve's post on alleged GOP racism (Hi, Steve!): I have known quite few members of the GOP, from all parts of the party spectrum, over the decades and with only one or maybe two exceptions, I have never really found any blatant racism in any of them; then, again, I live in California, so I don't know what the situation is in other states; you mileage may vary...

I personally don't believe there is virulent institutional racism in the entirety of the GOP; but the party has engaged in what can be best described as gross political opportunism of the worst kind when it comes to civil rights. I have posted this link, I believe, at least a couple of times before:

Southern Strategy -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

This effort by the GOP has come back to haunt and snakebite the GOP big time; the animus expressed by African-Americans, and other minorities, towards the GOP is largely due to this failed strategy. The GOP, still reeling from the aftereffects of the popularity of the DEMs occupancy of the White House (JFK, LBJ) and suffering from a reduction of its base, sought to bolster its membership by appealing to disgruntled Democratic Segregationists by casting the GOP party and their core beliefs as being sympathetic to the 'disenfranchised' Segregationist Southern element. The GOP got its 'cheap' votes, but paid a high price. There is an old saying about laying down with dogs and then getting up with fleas; the GOP got flea-bit a plenty. As the years rolled on, the GOP leadership realized they had stepped in a big steaming pile and finally owned up to it when the RNC Chairman at the time, Ken Mehlman, personally and formally apologized in a speech given in 2005 to a national meeting of the NAACP, for the GOP's Southern Strategy and the Party's exploitation of racial politics just to get votes. So, while racism was not really a fundamental institutional part of the GOP, it did serve the Party in some aspects as a means of conscious political furtherance; and, even though the GOP has formally apologized, the stigma still remains. This was addressed BY RNC Chairman Michael Steele when he was asked during a speech in 2010 at DePaul University why African-Americans should vote for GOP candidates and issues; not only did he openly admit the existence, again, of the Southern Strategy, he also made rather blunt statements about the GOP's failure to address the fallout of past actions:

RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy -

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rnc-chair...hern-strategy/

An interesting quote from the article:

[Italics mine...]

Something both the major parties should consider as they lose registered membership and the ranks of Independents continues to grow...

It is interesting to note, that while the main GOP membership has eschewed the Southern Strategy, there are still some elements of it still continuing:

How the Southern Strategy Made Donald Trump Possible -

https://newrepublic.com/article/1300...trump-possible

Is the GOP institutionally racist? No...

Have they despicably used racial politics to further their goals? Yes...



<O>

Interesting article. Apparently we're in another civil war.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ar_132880.html

No, it is not wrong. It is a safety net. For some(that I know) it is a way of life.

Thank you, posting the link to that liberal rag you call the New York Times,, I read it and didn't take much stock in it,, if that's all you got,, you'd be better off grasping for straws and getting your fake news elsewhere..

Speaking of “fake news,” the New York Times is a prime exemplar of the genre, having manufactured several stories with the clear intent of attacking and undermining conservatives, including but not limited to Breitbart News. A few recent examples:

In November 2016, the Times falsely claimed that breitbart News is a “Birther” website, despite explicit evidence to the contrary. Despite several requests, the Times has refused to correct the slanderous article, for evidently political reasons.
That same month, the Times ran an article about “white nationalism” featuring a photograph of Bannon, despite a total lack of evidence to support the implication, and despite Bannon’s explicit statements that he is not a “white nationalist.”
Also in November, the Times accused Breitbart News of “calling attention to [Lena] Dunham’s Jewish faith,” saying that it “feels like a bone thrown to the site’s white nationalist readers.” The Times neglected to report that Dunham had posted a quote from a rabbi about observing “shiva,” the Jewish ritual of mourning, for Hillary Clinton’s loss. And the Breitbart News article — which was straightfoward coverage — was written by a black author, not a “white nationalist.”

Was Hillary not the nominee of the democrat party for president ???
http://downtrend.com/71superb/top-te...oses-to-ignore

Do you believe in the constitution and the founding of this great nation,,you seem to be left leaning, or do I owe you a apology,, so who is doing all the rioting,, certanly it's not us on the right..

In other words: You didn't read it. :roll:

Music isn't as good this time around, needs more Dixie Land and Johnny Comes Marching Home.

Anyway, here comes dat boi liberal:

I thought those core values were liberty and justice for all? Freedom of expression, but also tolerance and compassion?

Extremists come on both sides, most liberals would prefer that gender is not made such a big thing of, that anyone has a choice to be anything they want to be without being mocked or persecuted for it. Sure, there are those who go a step further, but despite what popular right-wing media would like to tell you, they are in the vocal minority. Around about the same level as those on the right who want to glass the Middle East.

Wut? Shakespeare was written over 400 years ago. Half of the language used in it went out of date centuries ago. Although some seems to be coming back into favour now, in particular cuckoldry. I wonder if 'Strumpet' will make a popular comeback too?

It's pretty popular now to hate on the Iraq war isn't it? I can't say that this is something confined to the left. I think that most wars that America has engaged in have been done so to benefit America or to keep American global interests alive. This is nothing unusual, all nations do it. Morality is useful, but not always the primary reasoning behind a war.

The global free market seems to be seen as a form of oppression by some people right now, doesn't it? It's a funny world when China is the nation standing up for global free trade.

Yeah, that's fair, that's a traditional Left vs Right clash. I can't disagree with that one.

I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about this one, and I think if we tried to talk about this it would go to some ugly places. If there is going to be a civil war...this is one place it might spark, or at the very least some form of civil insurgency.

Again, this is where the average liberal and the extremist will disagree. The average liberal doesn't really care about the nuclear family so long as that family is not prejudicing against homosexuals and women because of their gender or choice of partner. To us liberals, the extremists are just as embarrassing and detrimental to our cause as people like Yubba are to yours. They cloud the waters and rather than work to progress a cause, they tend to damage it further. Unfortunately at this particular time in human history there is a greater tendancy for people to flock towards the extremist viewpoints and that is a great concern for humanity I think.

Well, it doesn't exactly do itself any favours, and even many Israelis are looking at Binnys current policies with a 'Damn son' attitude. Takes two to tango after all, and I think this current Israeli trajectory is not conducive to the long term future of Israel...but again, that's a whole other topic which would clog up this thread.

:hmmm: I think that term works, the problem comes when you apply it to not just those who conduct terrorism but anyone who happens to share the same religion as them.


I think that covers it. I mean, I dare say I could go off to some left-wing site and find a similar article with a whole list of stuff that says similar things about people on the right, and then you'd come back and say "Well, actually..." and make the sort of statements that I have made about how this is not how all right wing people are like. That not every person who is a Conservative is like the Bundy Bros, or like Richard Spencer. Both sides have their extremists, and both sides need to work towards the middle ground rather than allow their extremists to lead them.

I doubt that this will happen though, sadly.