On 11/9/2012 12:18 AM, scott wrote:
>> Uh... You would be rather surprised.. lol
>>
>> But, seriously, most people are going to see the $, not look at how many
>> hours they actually are likely to get. Those can vary, they depend on
>> seniority, and its not always clear how screwed you just made yourself,
>> unless you are really paying attention.
>
> In pretty much every step of life people are out to take advantage of
> you if you can't do basic maths or don't pay attention (employers,
> banks, shops, car salesmen, etc.). I don't think it's unique to dodgy
> employers trying to screw over their staff.
>
> A good example is getting a home-loan here in the UK. Most banks will
> offer a number of different products with different combinations of
> interest rates and initial fees. If you can't do the calculation to
> figure out which is the cheapest then you're likely going to be paying
> more than someone who can, especially as the bank is obviously going to
> promote the one that makes them the most money.
True enough, but I would argue that this is, sadly, becoming an all too 
common tactic for businesses in the US. Another store, with a weaker 
union, had it worse, and everyone, including the people considered 
"specialists" there had their own pay reduced to minimum wage.

Post a reply to this message

>> On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>>
>> I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like the
>> Dark Ages...
>
> I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the dark
> ages, certainly.

It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of 
the world thinks about your country...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:24:01 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the dark
>> ages, certainly.
> 
> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
> the world thinks about your country...

Not really, when I see some of what goes on in yours. ;)

(In all seriousness, there certainly are times where I facepalm over what 
our government does)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like the
>>> Dark Ages...
>>
>> I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the dark
>> ages, certainly.
>
> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
> the world thinks about your country...
People like me and Jim, yes, but their "supporters" have been actually 
caught, as of Obama's reelection, stating that they are considering 
leaving the horrible, socialist, etc. US, to move back to Europe.

They think:

1. We are weak, if not feared vs. the reality that scaring some of them 
is what makes them want to kill us.

2. Europe is, depending on what they are talking about, a golden 
paradise, or a worse disaster than the US. Its never the less, somehow, 
less corrupted than the US is.

3. Russia is still the biggest threat we have (one reason why one of the 
newest movie to come out is going to be a remake of Red Dawn, a cold war 
flick, where small town heroes hold off Russian troops, who got help 
from Mexico to invade the US, in the back end of no place, until the 
real troops finally took notice of all the damn parashoots that got 
dropped all over the place, and wondered, "I wonder why all of them had 
Russian flag on them?"

I could go on, but.. basically, we are talking about weapon's grade 
ignorance and stupidity here.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> People like me and Jim, yes, but their "supporters" have been actually 
> caught, as of Obama's reelection, stating that they are considering 
> leaving the horrible, socialist, etc. US, to move back to Europe.

It sounds like those people who, when the new healthcare system (kind of)
was ratified, threatened to move to Canada.

So US's healthcare system was made slightly closer to that of Canada, and
because that was such a horrible thing, they threaten to move to... Canada.
Makes perfect sense.

Btw, there seems to be an irrational fear of "socialism" in the US. Do they
even understand what "socialism" means? Or is it to them just something
vague and scary, exactly like "witchcraft" or "satanism"? No need to even
know what exactly it is; it's enough to know that it's something "scary".

(I understand that there's a minority in the US who would actually welcome
a more "socialist" form of government, if it means more equality and a
significantly better healthcare system where you don't have to die or lose
fingers just because you are not rich enough.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/9/2012 10:43 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> People like me and Jim, yes, but their "supporters" have been actually
>> caught, as of Obama's reelection, stating that they are considering
>> leaving the horrible, socialist, etc. US, to move back to Europe.
>
> It sounds like those people who, when the new healthcare system (kind of)
> was ratified, threatened to move to Canada.
>
> So US's healthcare system was made slightly closer to that of Canada, and
> because that was such a horrible thing, they threaten to move to... Canada.
> Makes perfect sense.
>
> Btw, there seems to be an irrational fear of "socialism" in the US. Do they
> even understand what "socialism" means? Or is it to them just something
> vague and scary, exactly like "witchcraft" or "satanism"? No need to even
> know what exactly it is; it's enough to know that it's something "scary".
>
Generally, when asked what they think it is, or have things that are 
described to them, they don't have a clue. I seriously think they just 
imagine it means we will elect Stalin, or some Chinese guy to office, 
and start plotting to kill James Bond with a giant laser, or something...

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Generally, when asked what they think it is, or have things that are 
> described to them, they don't have a clue. I seriously think they just 
> imagine it means we will elect Stalin, or some Chinese guy to office, 
> and start plotting to kill James Bond with a giant laser, or something...

It seem that those Americans seem to think that only the extremes are
possible: Either Chinese-style totalitarian communism/socialism, or
completely unrestricted capitalism. There's no middle ground.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/11/2012 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:56:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 1/	No one wants to stop existing when they die so the believe in a
>> religion that promises life after death.
>
> I disagree.  There are some who accept that that is the reality of the
> situation (to the best of anyone's actual knowledge), and are OK with
> that.
>

You are right to disagree. I was sloppy with my language.

>
>> BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people
>> discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be
>> allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.
>
> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.

I do.

> Objectively, there are ways to measure someone's competence (we do that all the time
> in the courts to determine if someone is 'competent to stand trial'),

True.

> and a measure of competence and understanding of the issues being voted on
> would seem to be a reasonable expectation to set.
>

Obviously it does to people who believe that.
I see it as, if you are a person who is capable of deciding to vote then 
you should get a vote. If not where do you draw the line?
If you deny the vote to people who are not competent then someone might 
decide that if you don’t want to vote for the “right” party then ipso 
facto you are not competent and have the right to vote removed.
It is a slippery slope etc.

> In this election, for example, I was unaware that there were two
> positions being voted on for school boards.  As I was in the voting
> booth, it was too late for me to learn something about those issues, so I
> abstained from voting.  Too many people see choices like that and decide
> that their vote doesn't matter anyways, so they pick a choice at random.
>

I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than 
picking one who put themselves forward.


>
> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.

Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:43:49 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It sounds like those people who, when the new healthcare system (kind
> of)
> was ratified, threatened to move to Canada.

Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my 
Medicare" (a government-run program).

Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without 
actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they 
hate about where the US is going.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:43:11 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It seem that those Americans seem to think that only the extremes are
> possible: Either Chinese-style totalitarian communism/socialism, or
> completely unrestricted capitalism. There's no middle ground.

The use the "slippery slope" argument (or maybe I should say 'misuse') 
that if we start down that road, there's no turning back.

Which is complete BS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message