|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 16, 2012 22:39:46 GMT -5
Origins of the surname "Zimmerman"Just as the surname "Asimov" is Jewish, but originated in Russia. Jews speak more than one language and are located in more than one nation.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 16, 2012 15:26:15 GMT -5
How many fathers have to work two jobs to make ends meet? Especially the fathers who have to pay child support, yet don't get to see their kids. Raising kids is a job, but it doesn't preclude another job, just as a father with one job has a job, but may work another job.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 15, 2012 9:37:06 GMT -5
If Zimmerman had beaten the guy unbelievably, it would still be a "hate crime" and he would have to pay.
I wonder why all the many, many cases of blacks attacking whites simply for being white aren't on the front pages or leading the newscasts every day? I wonder if any of those look like Obama's sons?
It's only news when it's PC.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 15, 2012 1:08:16 GMT -5
Umm... he's latino, with a Jewish name.
But, guilty or not, he will pay. How dare he defend himself!
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 13, 2012 16:21:46 GMT -5
Unsurprisingly, more people think he will be found guilty, whether or not he's guilty, than those who think he is actually guilty.
Have to appease the animals.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 6, 2012 16:45:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 2, 2012 23:29:52 GMT -5
So, since I'm paying for public housing, do I have the right to vandalize it?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 2, 2012 14:33:00 GMT -5
There's a film strip for that.
ETA: About 3 seconds after posting that, I remembered these:
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 2, 2012 0:27:36 GMT -5
I sure am glad there's no bias in the MSM.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 29, 2012 23:40:05 GMT -5
you only want to protect the greedy million dollar companies The only protection they deserve is that they be protected from things such as vandalism or extortion. As long as competition is allowed and the competitors' rights are also protected, why should they not be able to make as much as people are voluntarily willing to give them? It's like the lie about how women make less than men. When all things are compared in the same way, women make as much (and in some cases more) than men. Otherwise, there would be companies full of women only. But all things are not equal. Women have babies or want to work part time or are out of the work force for years or anything else. As long as all women are permitted to compete on a level playing field (ie, their individual rights are protected), there should be no guarantee of equal pay for unequal work. By the same token, if a company comes up with a great idea and makes millions of dollars, they will provide many jobs. As long as everyone's individual liberties are protected, if that company is paying its workers too little, someone else will come along and pay more and make even more money. Problem is, government guns enforce laws that prevent this interaction. And that force is often at behest of the unions and at behest of the companies themselves in order to prevent competition. (For example, onerous laws that prevent small companies from being able to comply.) So, yes, I want to protect the companies, but I want to protect ever individual's liberty. That means that unions can't force companies to comply with their demands using extortion and government guns, but companies cannot prevent individuals from joining unions. (And if working conditions are so horrible, they will get plenty of takers on that one.) And individuals would have the right to work for whomever they wish without interference from third parties. But when companies use the same tactics, they need to be prosecuted. And the "too big to fail" ploy was used in the 1920's-early 30's, and it wasn't true then and the bailouts didn't work then, either. We shouldn't be bailing out any business, that only delays the correction and often makes the correction much harsher.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 28, 2012 7:56:48 GMT -5
Here's an example:
When I moved, I took a 20% pay cut. The cost of living is 34% lower. How much did that pay cut hurt me?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 23:55:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 23:12:03 GMT -5
Taxes matter more than sunshineRich States, Poor StatesTake a look down on page x and see the top 10 and bottom 10 states economically. Then, look down on page 10 and see the top gainers and losers in migration. But, I'm sure the union monopolies have nothing to do with it all. It's just a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 22:59:41 GMT -5
When the wages are 30% higher, but it costs 40% more to live, are you better off?
Can you negate the fact (I posted the cities) that the worst cities are heavily unionized? I posted proof of the worst cities, and they are all very heavily unionized. Is there a correlation? Why are these cities not in right to work areas? (There are a couple on down the list in the top 20 in right to work areas that are very heavily inundated with immigrants and minorities, so I am at least honest enough to admit that not all are heavily unionized, hence my use of the word "tends" to be.)
How do you explain that the worst cities are heavily unionized but there's no correlation?
ETA: On the housing rebound, why do you suppose that in general, right to work areas did not tend to have fluctuations as big as other areas? One of the reasons we chose to move to where we did was that the housing market remained stable. And Detroit is on the rebound: I've heard the prices of houses have gone from $1 to $100 in the last two weeks.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 22:54:55 GMT -5
Sounds as if they had too many employees if they could get by with 86 fewer employees.
Imagine the government doing what everyone else has to do during tough times. Problem is, the government usually lays off needed employees and keeps the deadwood.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 22:52:25 GMT -5
It was actually about 5 PM before I could find it, but it was visible the rest of the day. Showed it to everyone I know.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 15:54:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 15:01:05 GMT -5
The media has shown a bad picture of Zimmerman beside a cute little innocent of a younger Trayvon repeatedly.
I wonder if it would be racist to show a picture of Zimmerman wearing a suit and Trayvon's FB gangsta pics, though?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 14:53:19 GMT -5
I could also summarize 500 pages from "America's Great Depression", but I don't have time for that. Besides, it would be pointless.
Fact: This law was passed and B happened.
You: There is no proof of cause and effect.
Fact: Another law was passed to relieve the effects of the first law and things got worse.
You: There is no proof of cause and effect.
ad infinitum
For example:
Fact: Almost all of the worst cities in the USA are heavily unionized.
You: There's no relation.
In the 1920's we bailed out England twice because the unions had caused them to become insolvent, but the unions weren't willing to give up anything and we descended into the Great Depression.
Here, the unions made protectionist demands (that certainly feel good emotionally) and the result was a deepening of the Great Depression, followed by the progressive "fix" which lengthened it by many years.
But there's no evidence of cause and effect, is there?
Steel mills closed down because it became too expensive to operate because of union demands, but there's no evidence of that?
And a high COL in relation to income (very interesting words to omit) is NOT a sign of a good economy. It is the opposite. You can pass a 90% property tax rate and the COL will rise, but will it benefit the economy?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 14:48:57 GMT -5
The other option would be to drop the fringe benefit of insurance completely.
Which is worse?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 10:27:36 GMT -5
Cities Where Things are Getting Worse Top five: Bakersfield CA, Los Angeles CA, Detroit MI, Stockton CA, Riverside-San Bernardino CA. America's Most Miserable CitiesThis one is a little older, and with slightly different criteria. Detroit is tops in this one, but that may be because Detroit can't get much worse. They are already headed the way of Greece and absolutely refuse to do anything to fix the problem.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 10:20:58 GMT -5
The Black Panthers have posted a bounty on Zimmerman's head and Spike Lee has tweeted Zimmerman's address at least twice.
I wonder what would have happened if the KKK had openly posted a bounty on Spike Lee's (or any black man's) head?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 10:17:37 GMT -5
JC JC JC, I am simply showing a tendency that heavily unionized areas are not only more expensive to live, but more expensive when the COL is taken into account. I gave the tool to use as comparison. And it's a tendency, not a rule. Where I live, the houses tend to be over priced because there are some wealthy people who want to live away from Dallas, but there are also some real bargains.
It's the same as the list of ten worst cities in the US: Almost all of them are heavily unionized.
The unions have destroyed the employment. They ran the steel industry away. They destroyed the US auto jobs. The list goes on and on. There is a reason that support for unions is way down, so unions turn to government to force more people in. (Fed Ex is a great example; the union repeatedly gets voted down, so the unions are trying to get the government to force it on them.)
But, it's a tendency. Colorado is heavily unionized, but it's not that bad. Nebraska is a right to work state, and it's pretty bad. (I don't know about individual cities there offhand.) Alaska is the freest state in which to live, but the economy is terrible, and the only thing going against it in the Freedom Index is that it's a forced union state.
There once was a day in which unions would compete by getting a better product (employees) at a better value and marketing them to individual companies. But that has been many years. And now, they stand around in state government buildings and sing songs from the former Soviet Union and dream of solidarity.
One day, if they get their way, we will all live in their Detroit utopia.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 26, 2012 1:10:36 GMT -5
NYC is 76% more expensive to live than Chattanooga. Unemployment in Chattanooga is 8.8% and in NYC, it's 9.6. Crime in Chattanooga is finally down to less than double the national average and in NYC, it's just below the national average. Median per capita wage in Chattanooga is $22,351 and in NYC, it's $30,885. So, wages are about 37% higher, but the cost of living is 76% higher.
Detroit has an 11% lower cost of living, but most of that is because you can buy houses for $100 or less because it's a living hell and there is a 48% unemployment rate there. It's like Escape from New York, but without the walls to keep them in.
The difference between where my daughter lives (heavy unionism in a forced unionism state) is similar. The unions have gotten them wages that are about 20% higher than here. Yay! But the cost of living is 36% higher. What? Unions didn't help them? Imagine that.
Now, I've done part of your homework for you, but take the rest of the worst cities in the USA, most of which are heavily unionized, and compare them. Either the cost of living is through the roof, or the local economic conditions are so bad that no one can afford to live there.
Compare the out migrations from forced union states over the past few years due to their economies being shot.
The Great Depression was a result of union activities and politics (directly and indirectly) and progressive ideas. Same with the 70's. Now, we're going down the same road and some people will still be surprised that we will have the same outcome as before.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 25, 2012 0:35:00 GMT -5
Compare any highly unionized area with a free area.
Except for places that unions have already destroyed, such as Detroit, there is a vast difference in which the wages don't make up the gap.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 25, 2012 0:33:31 GMT -5
Can't be true this isn't Obama's hometown remember he was born in Kenya. home·town [hohm-toun] Show IPA noun 1. the town or city in which a person lives or was born, or from which a person comes. So you're saying he deserved to be murdered because of his facebook profile. Anyone with at least a room temperature IQ would understand that I was saying that he's not the innocent little child that Obama and the MSM wants to portray him, but considering who's asking the question, I understand that room temp IQ numbers are a goal that will never be achieved. And self defense isn't murder.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 24, 2012 16:06:53 GMT -5
Didn't bother looking I see.
How about the worst cities in the nation? The vast majority of those are very heavily unionized with government force to keep the monopolies. Detroit is a liberal paradise.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 24, 2012 16:04:11 GMT -5
You mean stories like this one from Obama's hometown? 10 dead, at least 39 others wounded in weekend violence I wonder why the current occupant of the White House doesn't relate to those people? I guess he can't relate to an innocent 6 year old girl. But, he does relate to the person whose FB page showed him in a hoodie and talked about stalking people and acting all gangsta... Oh, wait, the MSM is showing only his childhood pictures, not his "all grown up" pictures.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 24, 2012 12:54:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 24, 2012 10:19:37 GMT -5
And yet, the more heavily libertarian areas of our own nation have much better economies than the ones with more government influence.
Just a fluke, I'm sure.
|
|