The Democrat Utopia

Archy1221 said:
You have a funny use of the term back peddling.  
 

It ain’t my fault multiple people with an agenda in mind don’t know how to comprehend the words in a post and then try to make them mean something they don’t.  That would be a you issue.  
Click to expand...


Dude.... you've become a caricature of yourself. It's like when a tv show starts having success with a normal character that occasionally does goofy things, then decides that the character should just be goofy all time to the point it doesn't even make sense. Think Eric from Boy Meets World, Alan in 2 1/2 Men, etc. You type things then claim to not understand what you type, asking for people to explain the meaning of your own words, you constantly argue out both sides of your mouth. 

For instance, in the above you are arguing the exact opposite of what you tried to call out regarding two different twitter posts about the nomination of Supreme Court Justices. - You're inconsistent at best, disingenuous at worst. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Born N Bled Red said:
Dude.... you've become a caricature of yourself. It's like when a tv show starts having success with a normal character that occasionally does goofy things, then decides that the character should just be goofy all time to the point it doesn't even make sense. Think Eric from Boy Meets World, Alan in 2 1/2 Men, etc. You type things then claim to not understand what you type, asking for people to explain the meaning of your own words, you constantly argue out both sides of your mouth. 

For instance, in the above you are arguing the exact opposite of what you tried to call out regarding two different twitter posts about the nomination of Supreme Court Justices. - You're inconsistent at best, disingenuous at worst. 
Click to expand...
What?  :blink:

 
Lorewarn said:
If everyone is constantly misinterpreting what you're trying to say, you're the problem. 
Click to expand...
Do these two comments mean the same thing (and remember one comment did not include the previous sentences before to give even additional context)

It only matters that they show up to vote along party lines.

“His vote for policy created by the Leadership Team is valuable though

notice the word though at the end?  It means there was additional comments before that were not included that talked about a Senator not being a singular issue as the first comment tried to make it seem.  

 
Archy1221 said:
Do these two comments mean the same thing (and remember one comment did not include the previous sentences before to give even additional context)

It only matters that they show up to vote along party lines.

“His vote for policy created by the Leadership Team is valuable though

notice the word though at the end?  It means there was additional comments before that were not included that talked about a Senator not being a singular issue as the first comment tried to make it seem.  
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll share the rest of it:

"I could argue that if a Freshmen Senator is mentally unstable to create policy good enough to have 60 Senators approve it, him creating policy isn’t much of a worry.    His vote for policy created by the Leadership Team is valuable though and something Warnock doesnt deliver that Walker would."

If a person is too mentally unstable to contribute to legislation in any meaningful way besides voting along party lines (aka Leadership), what else would we want them to do besides "vote along party lines".  

In your post, you make it pretty clear that you would argue that is is better to have a person that is too unstable to contribute legislation but votes along party lines, than Warnock who doesn't.  How else are we supposed to translate that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
If a person is too mentally unstable to contribute to legislation in any meaningful way besides voting along party lines (aka Leadership), what else would we want them to do besides "vote along party lines".  
Click to expand...
I didn’t that either.  You said contribute here and my quote said create, which was in direct response to enhance’s comment about  a Senator “creating” policy that affects citizens in GA and nationwide.    I’ve commented to Enhance in our ongoing conversation about being to contribute to proposed legislation from an AA point of view and provide value there along with voting for the legislation.  

 
funhusker said:
In your post, you make it pretty clear that you would argue that is is better to have a person that is too unstable to contribute legislation but votes along party lines, than Warnock who doesn't.  How else are we supposed to translate that?
Click to expand...
You’ve already made up your mind on how your gonna translate that without taking the conversation and other posters comments on it.  No point going further with you on this.  

 
If this is about state employees, fine. Go for it.  
 

If this is about the state mandating all companies do this with all employees, it’s just one more reason not to locate to California. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against a 4 day work week if it works for everyone involved. But, that needs to be a company decision with its employees and not mandated. 
 


 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
If this is about state employees, fine. Go fir it.  
 

Ifvthis is about the stars mandating all companies do this with all employees, it’s just one more reason not to locate to California. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against a 4 day work week if it works for everyone involved. But, that needs to be a company decision with its employees and not mandated. 
 
Click to expand...
Legislation…? 32 hours instead of 40 without a reduction in pay? How’s that work, does the state kick in for that 8 hours?

 
Lorewarn said:
If everyone is constantly misinterpreting what you're trying to say, you're the problem. 
Click to expand...
Here’s the bill. It requires companies to pay overtime after 32 instead of 40. 
 


It really is amazing how many times I’m in a business meeting and California us brought up as a state nobody wants to own a business in.  

 
BigRedBuster said:
Here’s the bill. It requires companies to pay overtime after 32 instead of 40. 
 


It really is amazing how many times I’m in a business meeting and California us brought up as a state nobody wants to own a business in.  
Click to expand...
Aside from a minimum wage law and when OT starts, what makes them think they have any say in the wage I choose to pay my employees? If they want to start OT at 32 hours, I sure as hell can adjust the base pay as I wish. Do they think I would do anything but laugh in their face if they said no, you have to pay X dollars per hour? f#&%in simpletons.

Okay, I read the text of the law. It wouldn’t apply to my business anyway. But what gives them the balls to think they can dictate not reducing the base pay if desired? When they get to determine that is they day they can run the whole mfer. Gimme, gimme gimme.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top