$10 minimum wage costing Mass. jobs

[AURaptor 1,123]

Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Harley Davidson, HP, Mattel, Microsoft, Dell and Nike among many otherS...

Yeah, nobody ever did anything worthwhile by starting their own business.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Priceless.

Let's ignore the facts about Ayn Rand and talk about Che Guvara (sic) instead. :lmao:/>

No, it was both. A compare / contrast thing. Sorry if that went over your head.

Actually, desperately trying to change the subject is more of a weaseling thing. Right up your ally.

Nothing was changed, there is no envasion here. You're just too ******* stupid to understand what is going on. The concept of Compare and contrast escapes you, obviously.

[homersapien 11,373]

Priceless.

Let's ignore the facts about Ayn Rand and talk about Che Guvara (sic) instead. :lmao:/>

No, it was both. A compare / contrast thing. Sorry if that went over your head.

Actually, desperately trying to change the subject is more of a weaseling thing. Right up your ally.

Nothing was changed, there is no envasion here. You're just too ******* stupid to understand what is going on. The concept of Compare and contrast escapes you, obviously.

Yeah, everyone on this forum is just too ******** stupid to understand you. Maybe you should just give up. It's hopeless.

[AURaptor 1,123]

I foolishly hold to the belief that you too can get a clue , Homer. I will not give up on you.

[homersapien 11,373]

I foolishly hold to the belief that you too can get a clue , Homer. I will not give up on you.

Oh no, you are just too smart for me.

I am just too dumb to realize how Che Guevara actually changes the facts of Ayn Rand.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Yes, you are. We've established that much.

But I shall endeavor to persevere .

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Yes, you are. We've established that much.

But I shall endeavor to persevere .

You're so quick to shoot off your mouth you don't even pay attention to what you're replying to.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Yes, you are. We've established that much.

But I shall endeavor to persevere .

You're so quick to shoot off your mouth you don't even pay attention to what you're replying to.

Example ?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Yes, you are. We've established that much.

But I shall endeavor to persevere .

You're so quick to shoot off your mouth you don't even pay attention to what you're replying to.

Example ?

It was in the response I replied to.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Titan, I think you're guilty of what you accuse me of being. Homer said he was too dumb, and I agreed by saying . Now, care to explain further?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Titan, I think you're guilty of what you accuse me of being. Homer said he was too dumb, and I agreed by saying . Now, care to explain further?

He didn't say he was too dumb. He said "I am just too dumb to realize how Che Guevara actually changes the facts of Ayn Rand." Che Guevara doesn't change anything about the facts of Ayn Rand.

You essentially and nonsensically agreed with him.

[AURaptor 1,123]

His premise was ridiculous, and I was agreeing with him that he was too dumb.

I really do fail to see the point of hyper analyzing this sentence structure when we've already established that I was using compare/ contrast to show the difference tween how two different people are treated.

[homersapien 11,373]

His premise was ridiculous, and I was agreeing with him that he was too dumb.

I really do fail to see the point of hyper analyzing this sentence structure when we've already established that I was using compare/ contrast to show the difference tween how two different people are treated.

My premise that introducing the subject of Che Guevara doesn't change the facts associated with Ayn Rand is ridiculous?

Man, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand how that works.

[AURaptor 1,123]

His premise was ridiculous, and I was agreeing with him that he was too dumb.

I really do fail to see the point of hyper analyzing this sentence structure when we've already established that I was using compare/ contrast to show the difference tween how two different people are treated.

My premise that introducing the subject of Che Guevara doesn't change the facts associated with Ayn Rand is ridiculous?

Man, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand how that works.

As I suspect, the ' facts ' of Rand were distorted and misrepresented.

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.^[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney's office, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare

So, we see, in the later years of her life, she did agree to make use of those things which were available to her, legally. Big flipping deal. For the last 6 years or so of her life, she accepted a meager amount of $ , to help live out her life. Oh, the humanity !

As for actual matters as to what she thought, and stood for -

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

I don't have any problem w/ that. Though reasonable allowances could be made for public works , utilities and such, but not much else.

[aujeff11 6,243]

His premise was ridiculous, and I was agreeing with him that he was too dumb.

I really do fail to see the point of hyper analyzing this sentence structure when we've already established that I was using compare/ contrast to show the difference tween how two different people are treated.

My premise that introducing the subject of Che Guevara doesn't change the facts associated with Ayn Rand is ridiculous?

Man, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand how that works. :headscratch:/>

As I suspect, the ' facts ' of Rand were distorted and misrepresented.

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.^[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney's office, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare

So, we see, in the later years of her life, she did agree to make use of those things which were available to her, legally. Big flipping deal. For the last 6 years or so of her life, she accepted a meager amount of $ , to help live out her life. Oh, the humanity !

As for actual matters as to what she thought, and stood for -

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

I don't have any problem w/ that. Though reasonable allowances could be made for public works , utilities and such, but not much else.

So you don't care about what chemicals are put in your food? Job regs, nothing

[AURaptor 1,123]

So you don't care about what chemicals are put in your food? Job regs, nothing

There you go again....

[TitanTiger 20,482]

His premise was ridiculous, and I was agreeing with him that he was too dumb.

I really do fail to see the point of hyper analyzing this sentence structure when we've already established that I was using compare/ contrast to show the difference tween how two different people are treated.

Hyper analyzing? It wasn't a long sentence. It doesn't take super grammar powers to understand it, nor to see that your response to it made no sense.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

His premise was ridiculous, and I was agreeing with him that he was too dumb.

I really do fail to see the point of hyper analyzing this sentence structure when we've already established that I was using compare/ contrast to show the difference tween how two different people are treated.

My premise that introducing the subject of Che Guevara doesn't change the facts associated with Ayn Rand is ridiculous?

Man, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand how that works.

As I suspect, the ' facts ' of Rand were distorted and misrepresented.

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.^[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney's office, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare

So, we see, in the later years of her life, she did agree to make use of those things which were available to her, legally. Big flipping deal. For the last 6 years or so of her life, she accepted a meager amount of $ , to help live out her life. Oh, the humanity !

As for actual matters as to what she thought, and stood for -

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

I don't have any problem w/ that. Though reasonable allowances could be made for public works , utilities and such, but not much else.

The question was never what's legal. That's changing the argument. She railed against these sort of social programs then took advantage of them when she needed them. No one questioned her legal right to do so. She wasn't being called a criminal. She's being called a hypocrite for taking from these social programs that she thinks are so evil. And she is.

[aujeff11 6,243]

So you don't care about what chemicals are put in your food? Job regs, nothing

There you go again....

You implied it. It's a valid question.

[AURaptor 1,123]

So you don't care about what chemicals are put in your food? Job regs, nothing

There you go again....

You implied it. It's a valid question.

Not remotely implied, anywhere. You're dreaming stuff up now. It's a completely invalid question.

[AURaptor 1,123]

The question was never what's legal. That's changing the argument. She railed against these sort of social programs then took advantage of them when she needed them. No one questioned her legal right to do so. She wasn't being called a criminal. She's being called a hypocrite for taking from these social programs that she thinks are so evil. And she is.

Well, since she didn't do anything ILLEGAL, it puts to rest any reasonable objection anyone could have to her making use of what was available. The Govt TOOK HER MONEY FIRST, and all she did was get a small portion of it back. Nothing remotely hypocritical about that at all.

[aujeff11 6,243]

So you don't care about what chemicals are put in your food? Job regs, nothing

There you go again....

You implied it. It's a valid question.

Not remotely implied, anywhere. You're dreaming stuff up now. It's a completely invalid question.

"I don't have any problem w/ that. Though reasonable allowances could be made for public works , utilities and such, but not much else."

The absence of government ability to regulate foods, medicines, etc suggests that you implied it.

And Titan this is what I was talking about yesterday when I said I have to make sure he doesn't talk so broadly and vaguely. He will take a phrase like "and such" pretend like something was implied if he gets cornered.

[aujeff11 6,243]

So you don't care about what chemicals are put in your food? Job regs, nothing

There you go again....

You implied it. It's a valid question.

Not remotely implied, anywhere. You're dreaming stuff up now. It's a completely invalid question.

I answer your invalid questions all the time. Answer the damn question.

[AURaptor 1,123]

So you don't care about what chemicals are put in your food? Job regs, nothing

There you go again....

You implied it. It's a valid question.

Not remotely implied, anywhere. You're dreaming stuff up now. It's a completely invalid question.

I answer your invalid questions all the time. Answer the damn question.

No, you don't, but I already did answer yours.

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

What you're asking about falls under the issue of harming another through force or fraud. In this case, 'fraud' as the one selling a product is doing so under the premise that normal expected use of that product will not result in injury or death of the individual.

Do I really need to explain this ?

[aujeff11 6,243]

So you don't care about what chemicals are put in your food? Job regs, nothing

There you go again....

You implied it. It's a valid question.

Not remotely implied, anywhere. You're dreaming stuff up now. It's a completely invalid question.

I answer your invalid questions all the time. Answer the damn question.

No, you don't, but I already did answer yours.

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

What you're asking about falls under the issue of harming another through force or fraud. In this case, 'fraud' as the one selling a product is doing so under the premise that normal expected use of that product will not result in injury or death of the individual.

Do I really need to explain this ?

No it's not.

The FDA and such are not the courts...DA