The O'Crappy Factor.

[Brian37]

Not with you bubble boy.

Blah...blah...blah

So this Thanksgiving my douchebag "Turkey Of Day" award goes to the idiot Brian37 who doesn't even know how honest discourse works.

Here is pro-tip: Post a video of the alleged douchebaggery so people can examine it, talk about it, and make their own decision.....otherwise all you are doing is saying you don't like O'Reilly and to be honest.....nobody really cares what you like and don't like.

Nope, it isn't a matter of just not liking him. Go back and re read my OP.

I take the same approach to all arguments. PROVE IT, the same distraction is used by anyone on any subject. Get them lost in the yellow brick details when they have not established the data in the first place.

Bad logic works the same.

I like what I believe=yellow brick road crap= desired outcome.

Things that work universally do not make arguments from personal bias.

Allah exists because the Koran says so.

Economics don't work like that either. Closed societies and open societies for political or religious reasons, make the same arguments and all of it ignores diversity.

Again, I have pointed out to him wealth that agrees with me, not him. Which is why I am not interested in going any further with him.

If the numbers worked the way he claimed other rich people would not be disagreeing with him. I am done with him. He is simply justifying his own bias. Same crap religion does.

[Heywood]

So this Thanksgiving my douchebag "Turkey Of Day" award goes to the idiot Brian37 who doesn't even know how honest discourse works.

Here is pro-tip: Post a video of the alleged douchebaggery so people can examine it, talk about it, and make their own decision.....otherwise all you are doing is saying you don't like O'Reilly and to be honest.....nobody really cares what you like and don't like.

Nope, it isn't a matter of just not liking him. Go back and re read my OP.

I take the same approach to all arguments. PROVE IT, the same distraction is used by anyone on any subject. Get them lost in the yellow brick details when they have not established the data in the first place.

Bad logic works the same.

I like what I believe=yellow brick road crap= desired outcome.

Things that work universally do not make arguments from personal bias.

Allah exists because the Koran says so.

Economics don't work like that either. Closed societies and open societies for political or religious reasons, make the same arguments and all of it ignores diversity.

Again, I have pointed out to him wealth that agrees with me, not him. Which is why I am not interested in going any further with him.

If the numbers worked the way he claimed other rich people would not be disagreeing with him. I am done with him. He is simply justifying his own bias. Same crap religion does.

I see that you refuse to deviate from your underhanded tactic. You say O'Rielly is a douchebag yet even though it is in your power to present video of Orielly being a "douchbag" you refuse. Why is that?

Are you afraid that if you presented some video people might not agree with you? Are you afraid that if you presented some actual video people might use it to show you are wrong? I suspect this is why you refuse to engage in the trivial effort of actually showing the thing you are criticizing.

When you make nebulous accusations as you have done. You make it very difficult for people to actually challenge you because your charge is so out there....nobody knows what it is you actually are claiming. For once in your life be honest and objective. Post a clip of O Rielly then make your case why he is being a douche bag. Just claiming O Rielly is a douchebag is underhanded. There is simply nothing to evaluate on merits and the only reason you do it in this manner is either you are too stupid to do it otherwise....or you are simply dishonest and don't want to give the opposition a specific charge in which they can defend themselves.

Either case is not flattering to you thats for sure. This whole thread is an example of how you are just a big flaming ass.

[Ryantology]

This game is called "Substantiate Claims that are Self-Evident"!

First up: Prove Bill O'Reilly is a douchebag! It's going to be tough. Your only option is to display virtually any clip of Bill O'Reilly saying anything.

Don't touch that dial! Those who master that Herculean task have a long road ahead of them if they want to win! Among today's claims to substantiate:

Fire burns things!
Pudding cannot be breathed like air!
Food does, in part, turn into poop after it is consumed!

[Brian37]

Nope, it isn't a matter of just not liking him. Go back and re read my OP.

I take the same approach to all arguments. PROVE IT, the same distraction is used by anyone on any subject. Get them lost in the yellow brick details when they have not established the data in the first place.

Bad logic works the same.

I like what I believe=yellow brick road crap= desired outcome.

Things that work universally do not make arguments from personal bias.

Allah exists because the Koran says so.

Economics don't work like that either. Closed societies and open societies for political or religious reasons, make the same arguments and all of it ignores diversity.

Again, I have pointed out to him wealth that agrees with me, not him. Which is why I am not interested in going any further with him.

If the numbers worked the way he claimed other rich people would not be disagreeing with him. I am done with him. He is simply justifying his own bias. Same crap religion does.

I see that you refuse to deviate from your underhanded tactic. You say O'Rielly is a douchebag yet even though it is in your power to present video of Orielly being a "douchbag" you refuse. Why is that?

Are you afraid that if you presented some video people might not agree with you? Are you afraid that if you presented some actual video people might use it to show you are wrong? I suspect this is why you refuse to engage in the trivial effort of actually showing the thing you are criticizing.

When you make nebulous accusations as you have done. You make it very difficult for people to actually challenge you because your charge is so out there....nobody knows what it is you actually are claiming. For once in your life be honest and objective. Post a clip of O Rielly then make your case why he is being a douche bag. Just claiming O Rielly is a douchebag is underhanded. There is simply nothing to evaluate on merits and the only reason you do it in this manner is either you are too stupid to do it otherwise....or you are simply dishonest and don't want to give the opposition a specific charge in which they can defend themselves.

Either case is not flattering to you thats for sure. This whole thread is an example of how you are just a big flaming ass.

Nothing "underhanded" about accepting that life is messy and diverse. The economic right and libertarians have the same playbook as Che supporters and Stalin. The same flawed logic religion suffers from.

"It works for me". I dont doubt he thinks it is working for him, I doubt his interpretation. Just like I doubt religious perceptions.

The only thing in life that works is evolution, and evolution does not give one crap who wins. If you accept that first, you can allow for diversity without projecting your own pattern on others.

There are different economic theories, but all of it still amounts arguments to gain resources, because economics only addresses the self interests of the competing factions who are distracted by open vs closed market. The reality is that all aspects of society need resources, to gain and maintain power, and religion and political party and business all do that.

Now if you are going to defend Haywood then do it, don't be half assed about it.

He is not doing anything differently in his tactic that I have seen from theists. It is still a flaw in his perception and a kneejerk reaction to any challenge to his pattern seeking.

I can accept wealth, I cannot accept wealth that ignores other segments of society, as I would Gaddafi, or China's authoritarian capitalism or Stalin's party monopoly of wealth, or Saudi Arabia's monopoly on religion and wealth.

In America our monopoly is class based.

Humans are pattern seekers , and all he is doing is defending his POV of a pattern, and it isn't even my argument that everything he wants is bad, just that he is stuck like a broken record.

1. I am not against wealth. I am against monopolies. Be it wealth to create a religious monopoly like Saudi Arabia. Or wealth to create a party monopoly like China.

His problem is that he stupidly thinks America does not do the same.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have no argument about O-Reilly being a twat.

I'd just like Brian to actually answer my point. I mean, words have meaning, and if he misspoke about the "inclusion" part, that's cool. A little clarification goes a long ways.

But launching into insulting diatribe because someone takes issue with some of your wording and points that out ... well, that's just being a dipshit. If it is what you meant, defend it, and if it isn't what you meant, clarify it, but beyond everything else, grow up and learn how to disagree like an adult.

Either that, or stick to posting about ABBA.

[Heywood]

Any business that reports a profit, yet has employees on the public dole, is a business stealing from its workers, as well as the taxpaying public.

A living wage gives more people more disposable income. They don't have to spend every penny on necessities, so you have a lot more people spending a lot more money on stuff that stimulates the economy. Demand naturally rises businesses strive to meet greater demand. Prices fall and employment increases. Oh yeah, and we spend less on hated entitlements.

The idea that the health of our economy relies on employers keeping the majority of what workers produce is bunk, and our insistence upon preserving this system is only making things worse for everybody.

Why is it the businesses responsibility to pay a living wage? Just because you declare it so? Well I declare that it is the chicken's responsibility to have enough meat on its bones to feed my family. If for some reason it doesn't and my family's nutritional needs have to be met by the government....well then that chicken is stealing from me and the tax payers.

Look, it is a cold hard fact of nature that an animal(which humans are) have to work until their nut is made. That might take 4 hours a week, or 40 hours a week, or 80 hours a week. I'm sure Walmart isn't working its minimum wage workers 80 hours a week. Why should Walmart be required to pay more just to subsidize a shorter work week for its employees?

With the amount of productivity we have today and our compassionate nature to our fellow man....I agree nobody should have to work 120 hours a week to support themselves or their family.....but it isn't Walmart's responsibility to see that happen. It is the responsibility of our society at large because it is a goal of our society. It certainly isn't Walmart's goal. We shouldn't try to pawn the responsibility of achieving societal goals on employers like Walmart because when we do so...we price the least productive out of the labor market.

No minimum wage and universal basic income for the win. Nobody is priced out of the labor market, and the necessities of life are re-distributed so nobody has to work a 120 hour work week just to earn their nut.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why is it the businesses responsibility to pay a living wage?

It's not, they could always close up shop.......but it's in their(and our..as a nation) best interests that they pay a livable wage (and of course they have to pay a wage - ever since we decided that people weren't property..they can always set up shop somewhere this isn't the case, or somewhere where they can pay 30cents a day...and they do). People need money to buy the goods they produce.

Look, it is a cold hard fact of nature that an animal(which humans are) have to work until their nut is made. That might take 4 hours a week, or 40 hours a week, or 80 hours a week.

When it takes more hours a week than an animal can be reliably depended on to "make that nut"...then nuts won't be made, and we'll all suffer for it, including the business in question.

I'm sure Walmart isn't working its minimum wage workers 80 hours a week.

No, they;re working a larger pool of workers just under 35 to avoid the impositions made by fulltime employees with full knowledge that Uncle Sam will pick up the remainder of the tab and that a large portion of their employees wages plus that subsidy will be returned to them. Walmart is an -actual- welfare queen.
(plenty of walmart employees -would- work an 80 hour week if they could...and on the rare occasion that happens..but mostly it's the salaried guys who pull the 80 hour weeks..for obvious reasons...amusingly, an 80hr walmart work week still won't make that nut)

Why should Walmart be required to pay more just to subsidize a shorter work week for its employees?

They already prefer a shorter work week and subsidies, what's the problem?

With the amount of productivity we have today and our compassionate nature to our fellow man....I agree nobody should have to work 120 hours a week to support themselves or their family.....but it isn't Walmart's responsibility to see that happen. It is the responsibility of our society at large because it is a goal of our society.

Exactly, that's why we pass minimum wage laws. That the mimimum wage has not kept up with cost of living is understandable, there's pressure to freeze it in the interests of business, and yes, the economy. We ask the consumer/worker to bear the load for as long as possible but eventually, the back breaks.

It certainly isn't Walmart's goal. We shouldn't try to pawn the responsibility of achieving societal goals on employers like Walmart because when we do so...we price the least productive out of the labor market.

They want to do business here don't they? They want to avail themselves of the advantages that our society provides a business don't they? They want there to -be- business to do here, they want there to -be- advantages to business here...don't they?

No minimum wage and universal basic income for the win. Nobody is priced out of the labor market, and the necessities of life are re-distributed so nobody has to work a 120 hour work week just to earn their nut.

Where does the money come from to pay for this basic income? In what way would it differ from a minimum wage or current welfare? Hmn......deja-vu....

[Brian37]

Why is it the businesses responsibility to pay a living wage

There are your true colors right there. "Screw you I got mine". This mentality is the dark side of evolution. It is a failure to understand how healthy ecosystems benefit all involved. You can staple you nuts to the wall, but that does not make it a good idea. The part you constantly miss is there is a HUGE difference between legal and moral. It is a choice between how we as a species want to gain resources. Do we simply fight over resources just because we can and allow those with the power to do whatever they want? Because you don't need an open market to do that.

What you claim as far as numbers DOES work, but that does not make it moral. Gadaffi also used the global market . China also uses the global market. Neither you or I would want to live in either place.

---

You criticize Christians, you get called a bigot. You criticize Islam, you get called a bigot. You criticize Jews you get called a bigot. Haywood is having the same keejerk raction on issues of economics as theists do with religion. You don't criticize anything to rid the world of it. 7 billion people will never be on the same page. You criticize it keep it off a pedestal so that NOTHING becomes abusive. Haywood suffers from the same bubble think religion does. You get sold an idea and you cling to it without regards as to how it affects others.

---

I have no argument about O-Reilly being a twat.

I'd just like Brian to actually answer my point. I mean, words have meaning, and if he misspoke about the "inclusion" part, that's cool. A little clarification goes a long ways.

But launching into insulting diatribe because someone takes issue with some of your wording and points that out ... well, that's just being a dipshit. If it is what you meant, defend it, and if it isn't what you meant, clarify it, but beyond everything else, grow up and learn how to disagree like an adult.

Either that, or stick to posting about ABBA.

I am under no legal obligation to say only nice things about anyone. If you want to live in a fascist state North Korea or Saudi Arabia might suit you. Outside that, on a private message board I am only bound to the rules of this board and subject to following the requests of the admins and owner of this board. I am not legally bound to be nice to anyone. I am only legally prevented from acting out in violence or calls for violence.

You need to grow up. I am tired of my species, including PC atheists, and my well intended liberal theist friends getting upset over word choice. Christians living in Kurdish Iraq have a right to fear. Gays living in Iran have a right to fear. You and I get to go to bed at night without that fear. If the worst that happens to you is being offended, you are in much better shape than lots of humans who cannot offend.

---

I take the same view about any topic, do not get married to an idea. Do not worship an idea. I see the same mistakes in our species evolution, that leads to all sorts of dogmatic thinking. Haywood is simply is married to one idea. And just like religion, he stupidly thinks any challenge to his idea is a call to outlaw it.

In evolution we see diversity, so certainly I do accept economic diversity. What I do not accept about it is the idea that our personal likes to our own patterns means we should never examine them.

And again, nothing I said is anti western, or anti open market. It is a challenge to change the climate, not get rid of anything.

You do not need an open political system to call yourself "capitalist". Nor does an open market, which I am for, mean by proxy that it cannot be abusive.

Haywood is reacting like Jews and Muslims and Christians when you merely make a peep about a real problem. Just like religion, I am not telling him he has to go away, I am saying that the current climate of our global market IS abusive. Not just in America, but in China and India and fuel alone is causing pollution that will make things worse for our species.

Our global wealth simply needs to be constructive, and be about solving problems, not merely about making a buck.

[Heywood]

Where does the money come from to pay for this basic income? In what way would it differ from a minimum wage or current welfare? Hmn......deja-vu....

The money comes from taxing rich people and rich companies like Walmart. The advantage of a Universal basic income over a minimum wage is that it does not price the least productive, least desirable workers out of the labor market. It doesn't give an advantage to businesses that our able to pay your minimum wage by eliminating competition from businesses that are unable to pay your minimum wage. It doesn't allow an employer to discriminate against women or minorities without any economic consequences like a minimum wage does(if you want to see what I am talking about...do some research on the Davis-Bacon act).

[Brian37]

FYI just on the issue of science O'Reilly is a douchebag. We do know what causes the tides. And that moron has a huge audience and spreading bad claims to gullible viewers is always something that needs to be challenged. You make stupid claims about nature and science, damned right I am going to call you out on it. Our planet does not need more stupid people. If anyone thinks I need to coddle the insecurities of those who make bad claims, they are barking up the wrong tree. The right to make stupid claims also includes the right to challenge stupid claims. Any idiot claiming we cannot explain what causes the tides deserves to be called an idiot.