Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Freedom of Speech?      Home login  
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 339
Freedom of Speech?Page 15 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
You all sure responded to stuff I "made up" and you "can't understand." LOL!

Liberals want "income equality" and "a living wage" except for illegals when you insist that they have jobs paying them little or nothing.
That is saying that it is OK for them to work for little or nothing. One of you essentially admitted to be "too good" for the job.
(Actually, Cotter, in between the snark, it appears that you agree with most of what I said)

If any of you read or saw The Help, did you notice that is exactly how people treat the illegals they hire for those jobs now?

If that is not the case, please explain. Why is it OK for them to make less so that you can have cheaper food?

And no, I have not limited what I posted to Mexicans. See comment about engineers, IT workers etc.

Again, the employers need to be fined, etc ( which I said earlier)

Let the prevarications continue.. .

"""you know everything & everybody" To paraphrase what Holly Hunter said in Broadcast News, "It's awful."

Maybe I am in the wrong room.

::::So I believe that the USA should be responsible for the messes that it has created. If Saddam Hussein was not deposed there would not be an ISIS."""

I agree. But I did not send troops there. And troops who refused were court martialed.
If my brother robs you of your TV, I don't owe you a Sony or the right to move into my house to watch my TV.

If I am moved, I may buy you one for YOUR house.
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 340
view profile
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/27/2016 5:49:23 PM
And there it is again, the hyperbole that so one ever even said.
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 341
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/27/2016 5:53:31 PM
Jerome's Law! Jerrrrrroommme's Laaaaaaaawwwwww!!
Isn't that the commonly used non sequitur, that nobody understands, ever? Some secret code known only to the user.
Joined: 3/6/2016
Msg: 342
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/28/2016 6:01:43 AM

Dee...I'm sick of the way you keep throwing the word..." Liberal"...out there to condemn and separate yourself from others...what da don't actually think you're part of the League of the High and Mighty, do you ?
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 343
view profile
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/28/2016 7:03:18 AM

There's no ethical obligation that every job position be a living wage one.

I don't know about the rest of the conversation, or the other facts in question...but I think that this particular statement needs a second look - for trying to pivot and base so much of a stance upon it.

'There's no ethical obligation that a job position be of a living wage. Or that every job position be so.'

That's a bit of a fuzzy, ambiguous, subjective way to be making a concrete, absolute, conclusive declaration. You'd be better off talking about what's legally required or not. But not ethically required in the way that's being done here.

Imagine that there were no laws at all requiring any kind of wage level, and every job was therefore legally for $1 per hour...then one could point out that there is no legal obligation to pay a certain amount. But it's a different thing altogether to say something like there is no "ethical" obligation to pay more than $1 per hour. To invoke this concept with this usage of the word "ethical" is to use some kind of rhetorical cop-out, and I think that this hypothetical reveals it. Using this example, it's more obvious that in fact there is an ethical obligation to pay more than $1 an hour...and for someone to say that there isn't, might be talking out of their arse.

There is a whole lot about society and how we live which isn't explicitly elucidated in formal law, but is part of our reality nonetheless. Indeed, one of the big differences between people and which causes much strife and what kinds of 'ethics' that each person chooses to live by or not. At any given time, there is an ethical zeitgeist existent among us which is often there regardless of what's in law books. It's an evolving understanding and often unspoken common agreement of how we should all live together. Through 'common sense', most people usually know what is fair and just, and you always have people who choose to not be fair and just in various ways literally because they can get away with it. Seldom can everyone be expected to always be ethically perfect, but that's beside the point. There are always differences in ethical zeitgeists between people which are not from a tendency or attempt to be unjust or unfair, but that's also beside the point. Otherwise, you can often recognize the 'bad' people by the fact that they make some kind of statement to the effect of "they don't have to do such-and-such" at those moments when they're disregarding a more commonly understood correct behavior...and screwing someone over.

So, back to the 'obligation to make every job position a living wage one' the ethical light that it's being framed within here.

Many jobs are not according to wage, and are not under the umbrella of an employer in the same way that's being discussed as with a place like WalMart. For example, a meteorite hunter hikes out into a field to recover meteorite fragments to sell to a museum or science lab, and gets monetary compensation one time and one time only. And the level of that monetary compensation is according to factors and haggling and market values which don't need to be discussed here, and are irrelevant.

But if we talk about the kind of job position as we're talking about with a place like WalMart, then we are talking about a wholly different situation (And to preempt future cop-outs, we're also not talking here about people intentionally seeking part-time). It is a position, under an employer, within a company, occupied on a regular ongoing basis. People don't work for free. They work in order to get compensated. And they work to get compensated in order to make a living. The whole point is to make a living. It's a very retarded oxymoron to say that this kind of job is not understood and expected to intrinsically be a 'living wage' one. And that's another way in which this can be looked at - what's intrinsic of this kind of job? Intrinsic of any job is to get paid for that job...intrinsic of this kind of job is that one be able to make a living from it (no matter how minimal that living is). And to claim that there is not this ethical obligation, is to disregard the most concrete and fundamental definitive of that pretend that the whole reason for it magically disappeared suddenly. So if it is intentionally modified to benefit the company at the expense of the a way which undermines a fundamental intrinsic of the job...then that is possibly the easiest way to declare something to be unethical.

We are not talking about jobs which cannot be made into full-time; I am not talking about situations where part-time positions are all that can be created. When full-time positions can be managed in large numbers, yet they aren't for the aforementioned reasons, that's what we're talking about here. Moreover, it would only be a further cop-out to mention the option of getting a 2nd and 3rd job to make up the difference - We all know how impossible it is to live that way, perpetually going from a 1st job to a 2nd job, and especially for those who even after those 2 or 3 jobs are still barely "making a living". And it makes no sense for 3 major employers to all share the same workers on a part-time basis running back and forth, instead of each one just having fewer of them but for full-time...unless you're trying to modify things to benefit the company at the expense of the employee in a way which is very debilitating for that employee.

So, if we want to talk about what's ethical, unless a person is being dishonest...which is what unethical people often do...then there indeed is an "ethical obligation" precisely along these lines.
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 344
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/28/2016 11:39:18 AM
The people that I have met who hold the position that I am addressing describe themselves as liberals. They don't view it as a condemnation.

If there is another word, thanks for the heads up.

Are you saying that liberal is not "high and mighty?" Where is it in the hierarchy?
Joined: 1/27/2016
Msg: 345
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/28/2016 12:03:30 PM

Dee...I'm sick of the way you keep throwing the word..." Liberal"...out there

As opposed to faggot, faggot azz, whore, bytch and gay sexual innuendos and then telling posters to STFU. That's got to be the most hypocritical statement ever made here you homophobic, obnoxious pos.

to condemn and separate yourself from others...what da don't actually think you're part of the League of the High and Mighty, do you ?

It should be obvious you intellectual sloth, as to what league she doesn't want to be associated with. So why don't you take your own advice and STFU.
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 346
view profile
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/28/2016 12:11:55 PM
Message 357 ..
Are you saying that liberal is not "high and mighty?"
Dee ... no one can knows who you could be speaking of when you speak of "the people you have met who hold the position that you are addressing and describe themselves as liberals" ... but sadly, it's been my experience that the "republican dippers" are quite judgmental people.

Here's an example ... I'm sitting in a room with a friend (my dance partner at the time) who is Catholic and republican ... with a movie on the TV. He's watching the movie much more intently than I am as I'm sitting there working on nursing notes and not paying too close attention to the actual movie ... but just enough to get the plot and all of a sudden he attacks me verbally! I'm not sure what I did, so I look up from my notes and ask him what he's talking about.

He tells me the girl in the movie is trying to decide whether or not to have an abortion because she has discovered she is pregnant and really doesn't want to marry the father. He then tells me that since I'm a democrat, (your term is "liberal"?) that I probably would advise the girl not to marry the father of her child and to get an abortion since "democrats want all unwed mothers to have abortions and also want the public to pay for it". The whole time, he was sneering at me and believe me, the tone he was using was not friendly either.

Just an FYI ... I have never promoted "abortion" as a means of birth control nor have I ever advised any woman to ever get an abortion, but since I'm a "democrat", that's what I do.

IMO .. I would say that in fact, it was the "republican" who was playing the role of "high and mighty".

Where is "it" in the hierarchy?
By "it" ... are you asking about "liberal"? If so then I would say (based on my experience) "liberal" pretty much ranks down with "the scum of the earth". That's pretty much the way I've been treated by most republicans ... even when they don't know for certain that I am a democrat.

I got an email not long ago from someone here on POF who wanted me to know that he thought he might be interested in meeting me but didn't think we'd get along too well because he's "pro-2nd amendment". (That comes across as "high and mighty" to me ... for certain quite judgmental.)

I wrote back and thanked him for the heads up and let him know that I know how to shoot (was on the OSU pistol team earlier in my life) and that I used to own a gun and will probably buy one again.

So now I'm getting the impression that "republicans" just assume that all democrats are "anti-2nd amendment". Is that true?
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 347
view profile
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/28/2016 5:20:24 PM
You might also ask the ranter, just how is the public paying for this (character in a movie no less) abortion.

I'm also pro gun ownership for those who are not criminals or violent. It's just like the BS we keep getting from a few rabid far right people here, that it's Trump or we are Hillary lovers, you know not just we might vote for her, we might not, but Hillary lovers and people who can't understand corruption or criminal behavior. It would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculously lame.
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 348
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/28/2016 5:43:46 PM
Some great "friends" you seem to have, cotter. What would an enemy say?
Joined: 3/6/2016
Msg: 349
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 4/28/2016 6:33:14 PM

I made my point pretty clear...continue to be further evaluation...pray about it...write a poem...whatever necessary to keep you at the table with the right people...
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 350
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 5/9/2016 1:15:56 PM
Just wondering what you feminists think about transgenders using title 9?

I resent them using comparison to 60s civil rights. Opposites like Bill Maher and Ann Coulter even agree that comparison is ridiculous.

So kill me and call me names. Whatever.

Hard to believe that the Justice Department is bullying universities to give mostly white men more "rights " (interested in any stats showing that white men are not the majority of transgenders)

A lot of the funding that they want to take away will hurt women and minorities. LOL!

It is hilarious that women don't realize that they are being duped and that they are using two brown women to accomplish that. Ha!

Terribly funny, actually.


I see the person below has nothing so resorted to ad hominem.........

I get that.

When all else fails ....

+psst. This is a discussion board. People present and discuss subjects. If you raise duck hunting and I write a response that I am for it, it doesn't meanthat I have a chip on my shoulder about ducks, see?
Joined: 2/12/2016
Msg: 351
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 5/9/2016 1:27:00 PM
""Just wondering what you femenists (sic) think about transgender using title 9? ""

How big is that chip on your shoulder? It must be a heavy burden for you and you've been carrying it far too long, I think.
Joined: 12/3/2015
Msg: 352
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 5/9/2016 1:51:49 PM

I resent them using comparison to 60s civil rights.

Too bad. Because many of the individuals that supported the Civil Rights movement ARE behind creating equality for other groups as well. Even the King Center and other organizations not only have participated but provided the guidance as to how to approach it.

What you may not know, or give a crap about is that the success of the Civil Rights Movement stems from a philosophy that MLK and his inner circle leaned by talking to another organization that was created by Mahatma Gandhi, so they in terms are passing it on to the next struggle.
Joined: 4/1/2016
Msg: 353
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 5/9/2016 2:27:12 PM
Why the flock are you still holding up Gandhi as some kind of saint IG?

I already pointed out to you that the man was a racist who felt that blacks were beneath him.

Imagine if big unions grew powerful again and seized this transgendered stuff.Strikes would look like a pride parade

The comparison to the civil rights movement of the 60s is ridiculous.
Joined: 4/20/2016
Msg: 354
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 5/9/2016 5:47:29 PM

Just wondering what you feminists think about transgenders using title 9?
Hard to believe that the Justice Department is bullying universities to give mostly white men more "rights "

I am not a feminist, but if I understand title 9 correctly there is no doubt that it is applicable to transgenders. They shouldn't be discriminated against because of their sex.

Having said that, my opinion is that federal government should give no money to any educational institutions for the purpose of sports or athletic offerings.

(interested in any stats showing that white men are not the majority of transgenders).

I don't have anything against white men being transgender. If that is what they like to do with their lives, it doesn't bother me.
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 355
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 5/10/2016 4:14:13 AM
The king center and the naacp are not controlled by black people.

even oj knows that.
Joined: 3/28/2016
Msg: 356
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 5/10/2016 9:55:26 AM
shalom , Dee !!! I need to research the King center. However , I can affirm the NAACP was NOT founded by Whites but by jews. Overton , Moskowicz and Walling were obvious zios. For years , WEB DuBois was the only African American official. Not since the recent elevation of Hillary Shelton have Black people actually had control of the zio organization. Personally , I find Shelton pretty mallable and easy on the eyes and ears. One almost gets the idea that Mr. Shelton supports White Nationalism as much as Mr. Farrahkahn. Both seemingly very zio wise.
Joined: 4/20/2016
Msg: 357
Freedom of Speech?
Posted: 5/10/2016 10:04:51 AM
^^^^ I know I am talking to a guy who is woefully ignorant . . . but yes . . . jews have traditionally in the past stood up for black rights (think Bernie), because they all too well understood discrimination.

From my vantage point, many of the black recipients of this Jewish support have been, as Donald Trump would put it . . . ungrateful.
Joined: 3/28/2016
Msg: 358
Freedom of Speech............Shalom?
Posted: 5/10/2016 10:18:15 AM
So 2b ; You are assuming race mixing is not the motive? Being the first and most drastically mixed race , jews have a vested interest in destroying racial pride and purity not only in Whites but Blacks as well. Fact remaining the European Christian being the strongest anathema to concerted zionism. The 2% has been run out of over 180 White Nations throughout the course of history. To create havoc in First World Nations by weaponizing blacks and browns not only has been predicted in the Protocols but seems to be the driving force behind rabbi soros. What could be more obvious?
Joined: 4/20/2016
Msg: 359
Freedom of Speech............Shalom?
Posted: 5/10/2016 10:27:19 AM
^^^^^ LOL. I like you OJ. I've liked you from the start. You convinced me long ago you truly believe the stuff you say. That's why I was not happy when your previous aliases were terminated. I find your view of the world somewhat amusing and because I consider you harmless, no harm done from my point of view. You could be a case study about how easily some people are led astray, whether by Wallstreet, politicians, or even what they read on the Internet. God knows, there are plenty of white power sites to choose from, and they all say the same stuff.
 Ed Bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 360
view profile
Freedom of Speech............Shalom?
Posted: 7/7/2016 10:12:06 AM
OJ126, what you say makes no sense... jews the "first and most drastically mixed race?" On the contrary, jews have been reproductively isolated both by others and from internal pressure to "keep the tribe pure." That's why they make it extremely hard to convert or marry into the faith, and have (as do many religions) strong pressures to marry "their own." It's a pretty repulsive world view, but they are not alone in this.

On the other hand, it's a big part of why they don't want to evangelize or expand to take over the whole world. And, like any exclusionist tribal society, it promotes resentment by judging "others" as "not good enough."

I wish I didn't have to add this, but I know some people will think me a hater: my mother was from Fiddler on the Roof, and my father from Shindler's List. I rejected the religion and the tribalism because I came to value behaviour, not blood.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Freedom of Speech?