Must Read: Unions Lose Big In Michigan.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#171 Dec 12, 2012
rowdy01 wrote:
<quoted text>
The house issue would really suck. I hope you realize I'm yanking your chain a bit, but I also don't feel that anyone should have to work more than one job to put food on the table.
Unfortunately, with all the places that are cutting hours to be able to hire more people, working two (or more) jobs is a reality for many. I'm afraid that working 40 hours a week at one place is soon going to be a thing of the past unless you get a guvmint job.
John Kasich Gov

Dublin, OH

#175 Dec 12, 2012
"I honestly expect a huge confiscation of assets to occur eventually... and the easiest thing to grab is 401ks and other retirement funds..."

Been there - done that when I was a managing director of Lehman Brothers... AND I got a fat Christmas Bonus from TARP funds!

It was easy!
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#176 Dec 12, 2012
Vncbz12 wrote:
<quoted text>Sales of what BS because you have more than the Chicago stock yards I guess glitter will have lunch after you get done delivering her pizza. You are a nobody that tries to agrandize himself in your make belief world. A wealthy person never reveals what he earns or what he has. You are as phony as a $3 bill.
first off I never reveled anything

second, you would consider anything above minimum wage wealthy

by your standards I am wealthy
Bill Hates

Columbus, OH

#177 Dec 12, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: 4 years ago almost to the day....I walked out of my house where I was the single earner leaving everything.....everything to my ex.
4 years later my youngest is back living with me, I am re-married; and the happiest I have been in 25 years.
Oh how NICE, another POS who abandons his family! I'm guessing you left all the stuff, and took all the income that it takes to support it. And your youngest cme back because you waved lots of toys under his/her nose that mommy could never afford.
And how long had you been nailing the woman that you are now married to?
Typical "Family Values" Rethuglican.
Bill Hates

Columbus, OH

#178 Dec 12, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
I seem to remember that Reagan presided over an economic boom.
That ended with the market crash of 1987.

Trickle down just doesn't work. The top 1%have had the Bush tax cuts for all these years, and the only jobs they've created in in the Third World.

Why do you hate American workers?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#179 Dec 12, 2012
Bill Hates wrote:
<quoted text>
That ended with the market crash of 1987.
Trickle down just doesn't work. The top 1%have had the Bush tax cuts for all these years, and the only jobs they've created in in the Third World.
Why do you hate American workers?
Is the Keynesianism in France working?

Why do you want to keep the Third World undeveloped?

Why do you want to subsidize inefficient businesses?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#180 Dec 12, 2012
I still find it utterly amazing that a group who generally supports freedom of choice in every other aspect of life would support forcing employees to join unions. I think this exposes a huge hypocrisy in the leftist mindset.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#181 Dec 12, 2012
TonyD2 wrote:
I still find it utterly amazing that a group who generally supports freedom of choice in every other aspect of life would support forcing employees to join unions. I think this exposes a huge hypocrisy in the leftist mindset.
The left is about freedom from responsibility.

That's what FDRs "Four Freedoms" were about.

"FREEDOM FROM WANT"

Since: Jan 12

Columbus, OH

#182 Dec 12, 2012
TonyD2 wrote:
I still find it utterly amazing that a group who generally supports freedom of choice in every other aspect of life would support forcing employees to join unions. I think this exposes a huge hypocrisy in the leftist mindset.
When wages drop in every industry across the board, you won't have any Freedom to change the course of a race to the bottom in America. Now, chew on that piece of reality check. Your freedom of choice will be to chose what job will take me to the welfare rolls the fastest. I think you'd better research the standard of living in states other than the dirty south that has right to work for less legislation. Check the subsidies those people get from gubment.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#183 Dec 12, 2012
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text> When wages drop in every industry across the board, you won't have any Freedom to change the course of a race to the bottom in America. Now, chew on that piece of reality check. Your freedom of choice will be to chose what job will take me to the welfare rolls the fastest. I think you'd better research the standard of living in states other than the dirty south that has right to work for less legislation. Check the subsidies those people get from gubment.
What do you expect to happen when 3 billion people are added into the global labor market?
Oliver Twist

Springfield, OH

#184 Dec 12, 2012
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text> When wages drop in every industry across the board, you won't have any Freedom to change the course of a race to the bottom in America. Now, chew on that piece of reality check. Your freedom of choice will be to chose what job will take me to the welfare rolls the fastest. I think you'd better research the standard of living in states other than the dirty south that has right to work for less legislation. Check the subsidies those people get from gubment.
"Profit" is not a dirty word.

It takes a lot of profitable businesses to provide all the welfare cash that provides food stamps, WIC and Section 8. Government jobs to not create wealth, they only confiscate it.

You just don't get it, and never will.
George Soros Hilliard

Burbank, OH

#185 Dec 12, 2012
Oliver Twist wrote:
<quoted text>
"Profit" is not a dirty word.
It takes a lot of profitable businesses to provide all the welfare cash that provides food stamps, WIC and Section 8. Government jobs to not create wealth, they only confiscate it.
You just don't get it, and never will.
All profit is theft, those greedy rich people, they suck the blood out of us, all they do is steal from the working man's pot budget.

I have a government job, and my pension does have wealth.

Since: Jan 12

Columbus, OH

#186 Dec 13, 2012
Oliver Twist wrote:
<quoted text>
"Profit" is not a dirty word.
It takes a lot of profitable businesses to provide all the welfare cash that provides food stamps, WIC and Section 8. Government jobs to not create wealth, they only confiscate it.
You just don't get it, and never will.
I never said profit was bad dude, I'm saying GREED is bad when profits are sky high and the SOB's who close their fist tighter are causing problems. The profit will be spread one way or another. Over and over again history teaches what happens when those who have the resources clamp down tight and refuse to let some of it circulate. Sorry Charlie, it's human nature. Why, do I hope you don't think we invaded Iraq to help those poor oppressed people do you? Sadaam tightened his grip on that oil, and Bush/Cheney said he has to spread the wealth!
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#187 Dec 13, 2012
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text> I never said profit was bad dude, I'm saying GREED is bad when profits are sky high and the SOB's who close their fist tighter are causing problems. The profit will be spread one way or another. Over and over again history teaches what happens when those who have the resources clamp down tight and refuse to let some of it circulate. Sorry Charlie, it's human nature. Why, do I hope you don't think we invaded Iraq to help those poor oppressed people do you? Sadaam tightened his grip on that oil, and Bush/Cheney said he has to spread the wealth!
if you would like to be included with the profits, may I suggest you purchase stock in the company.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#188 Dec 13, 2012
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text> Why, do I hope you don't think we invaded Iraq to help those poor oppressed people do you? Sadaam tightened his grip on that oil, and Bush/Cheney said he has to spread the wealth!
What oil was that WA? At the time Iraq had U.N.sanctions against buying their oil. They were more than willing to sell oil......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_agains...

The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power),[1] and certain portions including reparations to Kuwait persisting later and through the present.[2][3]
The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction.
Initially the UN Security Council imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq by adopting and enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 661.[4] After the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687.[5][6] The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs, whose import into Iraq was tightly regulated.[4]
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#189 Dec 13, 2012
Bill Hates wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh how NICE, another POS who abandons his family! I'm guessing you left all the stuff, and took all the income that it takes to support it. And your youngest cme back because you waved lots of toys under his/her nose that mommy could never afford.
And how long had you been nailing the woman that you are now married to?
Typical "Family Values" Rethuglican.
nice try buttwipe

you failed

I fired her due to behavior.....don't like it?.....who cares

she was replaced by a magnificent woman

why don't you go hate on yourself, there are plenty of things to hate on

Since: Jan 12

United States

#190 Dec 13, 2012
6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
What oil was that WA? At the time Iraq had U.N.sanctions against buying their oil. They were more than willing to sell oil......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_agains...
The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power),[1] and certain portions including reparations to Kuwait persisting later and through the present.[2][3]
The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction.
Initially the UN Security Council imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq by adopting and enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 661.[4] After the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687.[5][6] The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs, whose import into Iraq was tightly regulated.[4]
Oh, so Dubya Bush invaded Iraq in 1991? Those sanctions didn't stop Dubya did they? Or Cheney and Haliburton from wanting the oil from Iraq and the natural gas pipeline built thru north west Afghanistan. All attempts to confuse people with non-sense talk about security resolutions is hogwash. When a group of powerful people wants something done they will confuse and compound the puplic with gooply guck talk to hide their true intentions! Without a lot of esoteric explanations ,the bottom line is Saddam didn't spread his oil with Bush/Cheney crime syndacate

Since: Jan 12

United States

#191 Dec 13, 2012
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so Dubya Bush invaded Iraq in 1991? Those sanctions didn't stop Dubya did they? Or Cheney and Haliburton from wanting the oil from Iraq and the natural gas pipeline built thru north west Afghanistan. All attempts to confuse people with non-sense talk about security resolutions is hogwash. When a group of powerful people wants something done they will confuse and compound the puplic with gooply guck talk to hide their true intentions! Without a lot of esoteric explanations ,the bottom line is Saddam didn't spread his oil with Bush/Cheney crime syndicate
period!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#192 Dec 13, 2012
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so Dubya Bush invaded Iraq in 1991? Those sanctions didn't stop Dubya did they? Or Cheney and Haliburton from wanting the oil from Iraq and the natural gas pipeline built thru north west Afghanistan. All attempts to confuse people with non-sense talk about security resolutions is hogwash. When a group of powerful people wants something done they will confuse and compound the puplic with gooply guck talk to hide their true intentions! Without a lot of esoteric explanations ,the bottom line is Saddam didn't spread his oil with Bush/Cheney crime syndacate
ROTFLMAO

No WA, the bottom line is you were uninformed and incorrect as usual........

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#193 Dec 13, 2012
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so Dubya Bush invaded Iraq in 1991? Those sanctions didn't stop Dubya did they? Or Cheney and Haliburton from wanting the oil from Iraq and the natural gas pipeline built thru north west Afghanistan. All attempts to confuse people with non-sense talk about security resolutions is hogwash. When a group of powerful people wants something done they will confuse and compound the puplic with gooply guck talk to hide their true intentions! Without a lot of esoteric explanations ,the bottom line is Saddam didn't spread his oil with Bush/Cheney crime syndacate
Education. Get some.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599...

12/2009

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion Russia and China while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week." ....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Needy Families Get so Little FoodStamps.2 disab... 4 min sidekick 19
Sen. Bob Corker 24 min 404 not found 51
WWJD about N Korea? 1 hr d pants 14
Wasserman Info Mother Load | WTF???? 1 hr Mark Jizzle 277
LADIES - it's time to STOP dressing like PROSTI... 1 hr No joke 4
Trump's Erraticism < loss of Eroticism 2 hr Bella 6
True love 7 hr They cannot kill ... 3

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages