angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I do agree to a degree. Without a contract of employement then you are right, an employer has the right to basically do whatever they want as does the empoyee, however I find it silly to discuss things that aren't based in real life. Employment law is a fact of reality and is something all employers are bound by. A cash in hand job is generally a job that isn't offical so you are right you have no leg to stand on as an employee and cash in hand jobs are generally used so the employer can pay substandard wages or avoid the issues of paying tax. Hence why they tend to be illegal (well over herre at least) i guess our societies are just different. as i stated previously, no blue collar jobs are like this. there isnt some 30 page contract one has to sign to be a mechanic for instance unless its for some huge company. basically you drop your tools off, start working and you get paid. the only 'contracts' are implicit verbal contracts, not 50 page documents. the contract arrangement of which you speak of decy is pretty foreign to many jobs in the US. and these blue collar jobs arent 'cash' jobs, they are taxes with held legitimate jobs. a 'contract' doesnt have to be intricate, it can be as simple as: "i'll pay you 30$ hour, you get paid every friday, we work 8-6." "deal" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 there you go a verbal agreement is your hours are 8-6, you have a verbal agreement, a contract, therefore they cannot say they will fire you if you dont work 6-8. If I was to enter into a verbal agreement I would make sure I had witnesses to that so I could back myself up. It must be completely different over there, every single job I have ever held had a written contract breaking down (even saturday jobs when I was a teenager): employment hours wages what happens to changes in circumstances the disciplinary process how to resign what is classed as misconduct plus loads of other stuff I just checked my contract of the job I recently started it is 9 A4 pages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Just look back to Victorian times where working conditions were awful, wages awful and the employers were basically slave drivers, if you removed employment law from society nowadays do you think that this would benefit the employee? bad working conditions and low wages sort of like in 3rd world countries? the reason working conditions and wages were considered awful by todays standards is because society wasnt as rich as it is today. we didnt have capital equipment. think of it like this: you have to dig the foundation for a 60,000 sq ft building. its 1875. this was all done by hand by lots of laborers. wages were low. days were long. because society wasnt as rich and didnt have a high living standard, all work was manual. people had to work those long days just to put food in their mouths. fast forward. same 60,000 sq ft building foundation. year 2012. earth moving equipment. foundation is done 2 days and it took months in 1875. why? we have a higher living standard and capital equipment. the same job that paid nothing back in 1875 pays 30$ an hour to the guy driving the back hoe. on that 30$ an hour he can afford to take off on the weekends, go on vacations, buy flat screens and buy a new car. working conditions were poor in those days for those reasons, not because there wasnt sufficient legislation. if this is the case, why cant we just pass a law in china, raise the minimum wage to 500$ per hour? if this happened, no one would have a job. if passing a law could create prosperity, why hasnt it? why cant we just raise the minimum wage to 5 million per house, give everyone 365 vacation days a year and we'll all be living in utopia? why not just print a bunch of money and we can be like zimbabwe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 economically yes, but not for the full spectrum of my political viewpoints im curious to hear what issues you arent a commie on......:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 China can do what they want, I am talking about the law that affects me. Same as I dont live in the 3rd world so what happens there is of no relevance to me in this discussion. I never said passing a law would create prosperity, that is just another one of your extreme examples that never has any basis in reality and never do anything for your arguement. I am trying to talk about things that are actually in the real world, you always come out with these examples that are complete fantasy and would never work in a real world situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 im curious to hear what issues you arent a commie on......:D Foriegn aid is something I am not really a lefty on. Maybe if a country has had a major disaster it is nice to give them some money to help but I dont see why the hell we regularly give money to different countries to prop up their corrupt systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 because if a company is laying off workers they have to pay redundancy to compensate the employee, if the company cannot afford to pay them then there are routes the worker can go down to claim money back. Businesses go out of business it is a completely different situation to what we have been discussing. so you own a small business. you and your wife work the business and have one employee. you sell widgets on ebay. because you were paying this employee 1000$ per hour in order not to 'exploit' them, you have gone out of business. you have closed your ebay store. but this employee now claims they have a right to still work. you must still pay him 1000$ an hour, he must come to your basement everyday to package up widgets. he has a right to do this and ceasing the 'contract' he signed is a threat of violence against him. you can either keep paying him or you can give him this severance package. the government says 1 million should do. your yearly gross revenues for the 1 year you were in business was 15,000$. who is getting the shaft in this deal? we are discussing the ultimate fact that EITHER PARTY OF THE EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP ULTIMATELY HAS THE RIGHT TO LEAVE/CEASE THE AGREEMENT. TO SAY OTHERWISE IS TO ENSLAVE EACH OTHER TO THE AGREEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i worked for a small business for 10 years. it had a few employees. one day the owner sold the business. they dis-incorporated and moved there stuff out. no severance packages. just a simple, we are out of business thanks everyone for working for us. this is life dude, not everyone works for goldman sachs. If you think an employer has a right to tell you to take a hike then that is fine, I'm not gonna be pushed around like that. Also it is not within the employers right to tell you to work saturday or fire you, if they give you adequate notice of a change in your working hours then yes that is fine but if your boss comes to you on thursday and says work saturday or your fired then the employer would not havea leg to stand on. i could care less what a law says and whether one has a leg to stand on if faced with charges brought by said law enforcers. im talking purely in theory. the law also said slavery was legal. the law also said blacks had to sit at the back of the bus. the law, unless it punishes mala in se, is illegitimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 China can do what they want, I am talking about the law that affects me. Same as I dont live in the 3rd world so what happens there is of no relevance to me in this discussion. it is totally relevant to the discussion and defeated your argument so that is the only reason you dont want to talk about it. economic theory is universal. the reason why third world countries apply to the victorian example is because the US and the UK were those third world countries 100 years ago. they didnt have capital. but through capitalism and free enterprise, they were able to increase the living standard of everyone. would you rather be poor in a third world country or poor in a semi capitalist country? I never said passing a law would create prosperity, that is just another one of your extreme examples that never has any basis in reality and never do anything for your arguement. I am trying to talk about things that are actually in the real world, you always come out with these examples that are complete fantasy and would never work in a real world situation. you think a law can create prosperity. this is best illustrated at the extremes that it is a falsehood. if you think raising the minimum wage to a living wage will work, say from 8 to 25$ per hour, why are you being so stingy? why not 50$ per hour? 100? 1000? 5000? reason being, whenever the minimum wage is raised, it outlaws jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Foriegn aid is something I am not really a lefty on. Maybe if a country has had a major disaster it is nice to give them some money to help but I dont see why the hell we regularly give money to different countries to prop up their corrupt systems. cool. something we finally agree on. we shouldnt rob the poor people in the US or the UK to send to a rich person in a 3rd world country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 why would you pay someone $1000 an hour for a little ebay shop? again a ludicrous argument as always. Nothing you have said in that first example is even worth answering as it is such a mumbled load of gibberish that has no basis in reality. Fine you dont care what the law says in regards to employment, fair enough I am just glad I have it to protect me. At no point have I said anything about morality of the law, purely what the law says, if the law states salvery is legal then it is legal, doesnt mean I agree with it or think it is right, this is the great thing about thinking for yourself you can decide what you do and dont agree on, I agree with employment law, you don't, employment law has benefitted me many times. At no point have I said that an employer cannot fire an employee or an employee leave a position, just that there are steps that HAVE to be followed to make it happen and telling someone to work a saturday is not a valid reason to fire someone, whether you think it is or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 it is totally relevant to the discussion and defeated your argument so that is the only reason you dont want to talk about it. economic theory is universal. the reason why third world countries apply to the victorian example is because the US and the UK were those third world countries 100 years ago. they didnt have capital. but through capitalism and free enterprise, they were able to increase the living standard of everyone. would you rather be poor in a third world country or poor in a semi capitalist country? you think a law can create prosperity. this is best illustrated at the extremes that it is a falsehood. if you think raising the minimum wage to a living wage will work, say from 8 to 25$ per hour, why are you being so stingy? why not 50$ per hour? 100? 1000? 5000? reason being, whenever the minimum wage is raised, it outlaws jobs. minimum wage in theUK is about £6.08 an hour, that is what is deemedliveable,doI think it is, no I dont. But that is what hassbeen agreed on, if people agreed on £50an hour then yea that would cause major problems because it is stupid and most businesses could afford that. It is a balance between allowing business to exist and also for the lowest paid workers to actually have a (supposed) liveable wage. Most people earn above minimum wage so it isn't even relevant in most jobs. If china thought it could pay a minimum wage of £50 an hour then that would be down to them (a fucking stupid idea if they did but they could do it if they wanted) it wouldnt work out well but they could do it if they wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 why would you pay someone $1000 an hour for a little ebay shop? again a ludicrous argument as always. Nothing you have said in that first example is even worth answering as it is such a mumbled load of gibberish that has no basis in reality. because you dont want to 'exploit' anyone. the same absurdity it is to pay someone 1000$ an hour for an ebay shop is the same principle that makes paying someone 20$ an hour when their productivity is 10$ economically inefficient and will make you go out of business. Fine you dont care what the law says in regards to employment, fair enough I am just glad I have it to protect me. security in exchange for the animating contest of freedom. At no point have I said anything about morality of the law, purely what the law says, if the law states salvery is legal then it is legal, doesnt mean I agree with it or think it is right, this is the great thing about thinking for yourself you can decide what you do and dont agree on, I agree with employment law, you don't, employment law has benefitted me many times. you stated that it is against the law in your country for someone to fire you without proper cause. whereas on a rights basis, anyone has the right to terminate any association they want to according to natural law. by siding with the law, and supporting what it says, you are supporting the law and the morality of the law. At no point have I said that an employer cannot fire an employee or an employee leave a position, just that there are steps that HAVE to be followed to make it happen and telling someone to work a saturday is not a valid reason to fire someone, whether you think it is or not. you are tied up on technicalities. my position is either party can cease any association, (barring contractual obligations) when they wish. whether its a job, marriage, economic transaction, etc. to support the alternative is to support slavery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 minimum wage in theUK is about £6.08 an hour, that is what is deemedliveable,doI think it is, no I dont. But that is what hassbeen agreed on, if people agreed on £50an hour then yea that would cause major problems because it is stupid and most businesses could afford that. It is a balance between allowing business to exist and also for the lowest paid workers to actually have a (supposed) liveable wage. Most people earn above minimum wage so it isn't even relevant in most jobs. If china thought it could pay a minimum wage of £50 an hour then that would be down to them (a fucking stupid idea if they did but they could do it if they wanted) it wouldnt work out well but they could do it if they wanted. atleast you acknowledge the principle i am espousing. the same reason that a person worth 1$ per hour cannot get paid 10$ an hour (minimum wage in this example)or the company loses money, is the same reason why china cant raise the minimum wage to 50$ an hour and create prosperity. its just a level of degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 you are tied up on technicalities. my position is either party can cease any association, (barring contractual obligations) when they wish. whether its a job, marriage, economic transaction, etc. to support the alternative is to support slavery. my point exactly where I live you do not enter employment without that contract, which will show the terms of which you can cease the association, I already said that without that contractual obligation then people can do what they want completely unrelated I think my space bar might be breaking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 sorry maybe I should have put I have a right to not be exploited, you are right, I do not have a right to a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 my point exactly where I live you do not enter employment without that contract, which will show the terms of which you can cease the association, I already said that without that contractual obligation then people can do what they want completely unrelated I think my space bar might be breaking i think you are just getting hung up on the complexity of a 'contract' i believe in implicit contract. for instance, if i walk into a fast food joint, order a hamburger, im not expecting them to tell me its 500$. a contract can be as simple as i described above. even simpler. every time you trade or buy something, you are entering into a contract. you give them money, they give you the stuff and vice versa. perhaps its just as simple as you havent had the experience of working in a more free, less regulated, or blue collar type working situation and are hung up on the contract one might fill out working for a financial institution. there is much more to the real world than the corporate world. im speaking in abstract terms, not in the employment arrangements of someone working for morgan stanley or something. im talking fundamentals to illustrate a point. the whole point is anyone has a right to cease an association, obviously barring any contractual obligations. we agree on the second part, you just seem to think every business deal should have the utopian anti capitalist 'workers united' oriented stuff tacked on to every employment arrangement. for 'social justice' purposes. its just an extension of being a statist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 sorry maybe I should have put I have a right to not be exploited, you are right, I do not have a right to a job. 'exploited' is entirely subjective. a marxist will say that if someone pays the market rate for a gallon of gasoline they are being exploited. a free market guy will say if both parties consent to ANY arrangement, the deal is legit. in effect, if you consider yourself being exploited, you terminate the association. that is the mechanism to stop 'exploitation.' illustrate this more simply. you have a perfect right to put forth a requirement that only single women age 21 can come through your front door and when they do they have to be naked. if someone does it, fine. you just cant force them to do it. same goes for both sides of an employee/employer relationship. the employer is the the homeowner (you) and the employee is the naked 21 year old chick. if either side doesnt like the deal, they can refuse to let the deal take place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 there is no such thing as utopia, you are the only person that mentions that. I would rather be a statist or a commie rather than someone that has no regard for society or trying to make everyones life better, all I ever get from you is that as long as the person at the top is winning and making money then that is fine, to hell with the people who get downtrodden to that ends, they have no right to moan because they are having a few crumbs thrown at them for all their hard work. You constantly disregard the actual real world and talk theory, theory doesnt count for shit, it is just theory it hasnt been proven in reality. Why shouldnt there be social justice? why should the poor be left to rot? because you dont want to pay some tax? or adhere to a law that protects a workers rights? I am glad that the libertarian view will never make it into the real world via a politician actually being elected to a true position of power because that would just make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 'exploited' is entirely subjective. a marxist will say that if someone pays the market rate for a gallon of gasoline they are being exploited. a free market guy will say if both parties consent to ANY arrangement, the deal is legit. in effect, if you consider yourself being exploited, you terminate the association. that is the mechanism to stop 'exploitation.' illustrate this more simply. you have a perfect right to put forth a requirement that only single women age 21 can come through your front door and when they do they have to be naked. if someone does it, fine. you just cant force them to do it. same goes for both sides of an employee/employer relationship. the employer is the the homeowner (you) and the employee is the naked 21 year old chick. if either side doesnt like the deal, they can refuse to let the deal take place. you dont have a negotiation to buy fuel, if you have a car you HAVE to buy fuel, I cannot go into a petrol station and barter for a reduction in the cost of the fuel. I know you will say well you could not have a car, but people need to be able to move betweeen places for work. entering into someones home and entering into a position of employment are 2 seperate things, your points are always to such an extreme they are almost laughable and do nothing for your arguements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I would rather be a statist or a commie rather than someone that has no regard for society or trying to make everyones life better, all I ever get from you is that as long as the person at the top is winning and making money then that is fine, to hell with the people who get downtrodden to that ends, they have no right to moan because they are having a few crumbs thrown at them for all their hard work. this statement blatantly shows you do not understand what i am espousing. i have 'regard for society' and 'making peoples lives better.' what i am against is you hiring some guys with badges to send them to your neighbor to steal his property to give it the 'down trodden' or to 'society.' please understand that. if you engage in this behavior voluntarily, all the better. if you dont, unlike you, i dont propose throwing these people in jail. its that simple. very easy to understand. You constantly disregard the actual real world and talk theory, theory doesnt count for shit, it is just theory it hasnt been proven in reality. theory has yet to be proven. hmmm. do you own yourself? this is just a theory. gravity is a theory. i think both of those examples have something to do with 'real life.' the entire discussion is what should government be doing. that theory is what we are discussing. we dont need to discuss what government is doing. we already know that. you just dont understand that there is a position out there that says government shouldnt be doing most of what it is doing because it is detrimental to life, liberty, property, prosperity, and the advancement of the human race. what is this radical notion that you hate so much? that other people are not your property. Why shouldnt there be social justice? why should the poor be left to rot? what is social justice? it is robbing someone to give to someone else. here is my position on this. theft is wrong. it is a violation of ones rights. do you agree with this? i'd imagine you do. so if it is wrong if me or your steal something, why is it ok if a government does it? the very basis of government is the people supposedly delegated powers they have to the government. if people dont have a right to steal, how can they force government to do it? there is nothing wrong with stroking off a check for your entire income to pay the down trodden's way in life. nothing at all. all im saying is, dont send the cops after someone and throw them in jail if they dont do it. thats all im asking. if you will stop using the government against those that dont comply with your wishes, all is good. I am glad that the libertarian view will never make it into the real world via a politician actually being elected to a true position of power because that would just make the rich richer and the poor poorer. thankfully a libertarian is not interested in running ones life. they are interested not in power, but reducing government to restore liberty. while i acknowledge this is fruitless politically, all empires come to an end by their own internal economic problems or from the people refusing to comply. you dont have a negotiation to buy fuel, if you have a car you HAVE to buy fuel, I cannot go into a petrol station and barter for a reduction in the cost of the fuel. I know you will say well you could not have a car, but people need to be able to move betweeen places for work. so, what you are saying is, if a gas station offered gas for sale for 1 million dollars per gallon, they also come to your house, put a gun to your head and force you to buy it? or do you just say...'eh, man, that clown is a rip off!' and dont buy it? do you also consider yourself a slave to a battery manufacturer because you HAVE to buy batteries for your wireless keyboard produced for you by greedy capitalists? your underlying assumption is that the gas station owes you fuel or that you have a right to it. the price is determined not by dickering, but by whether people come in or not. its sort of like this. you put a for sale sign on your car. you want 3500 and nothing less. some people wont even call you about it. some people want the car, but since you will not lower the price, you are tyrannizing them because, hey, they have a right to that car. they have a right to dicker over the price for YOUR car, whether you want to or not. do you see what im saying here? that they are claiming a right to your car, and you guys are just dickering over the details. that is what you are advocating by implying that you should some how be able to go into a gas station, and dicker with them on the price, when they dont want to. you are going on their property, trying to buy their gas. if they dont want to dicker with you, they dont have to. just like you dont have to dicker with the guy buying your car. most people dont want dicker over gas price because commodities markets are highly regulated and so much goes into determining a price its either all or nothing. take it or leave it. i;ll say it again. if its really true that gas station owners can charge whatever they want because you are forced to buy it, why arent they charging 100$ a gallon? a person has a right to ask whatever they want and in the majority of states in the US, it is totally legal. its funny cause when i worked at a gas station as a mechanic, i would watch what went on with gas prices. and they were constantly lowering them to compete with the other stations to the point of them not even making enough money to pay the cashiers. so much for your theory that they can charge what they want. i think your theory on these matters is much to influenced by a life of being indoctrinated in state worship. you can literally not be selling any gas at a gas station because your price per gallon is 1 penny to high. seen it all the time. ALL the time. and you are trying to tell me that gas stations can charge whatever they want because people 'need' to buy it? would they buy it at 5000$ per gallon? i think the question answers its self. prices are nothing but signals. they are to the economy, what road maps are to the geography. entering into someones home and entering into a position of employment are 2 seperate things, your points are always to such an extreme they are almost laughable and do nothing for your arguements. this is another area you are wrong on. a home and a business are both private property. property rights uber alles. you can govern your house or your business however the fuck you want to. both examples of entering into a house and a business are nothing but requirements by the property owner. read again, the OWNER. assuming otherwise, implies that you still believe you have a right to a job or a right to tell other people what to do in general. i think its true. arguing with a statist is arguing with the witless. i guess i've had my fill for a while and will go onto other things. haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I gave up at Gravity is just a theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I gave up at Gravity is just a theory Well, here is a video that I am going to use as proof to back up your statement. It seems as legit as all the other videos posted on here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwtCHfbNVG4 :lol: :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I gave up at Gravity is just a theory Perhaps you don't fully understand the meaning of "theory" Theory is scientific knowledge that can't be disproven by experiment See: http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I do not think you fully understand what a theory is. You are about 50% there. "In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard." Copied from Apple references. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Fuck the EPA, fire fighters, public libraries, and traffic signals. Who needs em? RON PAUL TWENNY-TWELVE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Sort of like how he claims to be ignorant of the hate mongering in his old newsletters? The guy is a radical nut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuntflaps Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Sort of like how he claims to be ignorant of the hate mongering in his old newsletters? The guy is a radical nut. Out of the 240 articles in question, only about 9 contain objectionable material. Of those 9, they appeared in sequence, which lends credence to the claim that the racist commentary did indeed come from an editor other than Paul and that Paul didn't keep that author around for any great deal of time. The old race card, almost works every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Yeah, all that shit is just a weak attempt to discredit him. It is important to know who someone is, their character and what they believe in but no one knows anymore than whoever really wrote that. Politicians, parties, pundits will pull anything they can to attack an opponent. I mean when we had our last election for Governor the democrats pulled up a paper our now Governor wrote like 30 years ago in high school where he said he believed in the family unit, dad makes the money, mom raises the kids and they tried to say he was a sexist, patriarch who hated women. Politics is just disgusting, no one attacks where someone stands on issues its all a matter of party bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Sort of like how he claims to be ignorant of the hate mongering in his old newsletters? The guy is a radical nut. He's addressed it several times. He has high level campaign staff that are BLACK. Colleagues have also come out, fuck the leader of a NAACP chapter in Texas has come out and supported him against these accusations. So he's a racist man who employee's black people during his campaign to just mask his racism. And those same people have no problem working for him during this time period. Right. Sounds like reality to me. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.