Lucky...

Yes, of course, because ANYONE that isn't in favor of Obamacare is in favor of people being 'left in the street to die'. If that's all you can bring as an argument, you might as well stop now. What's your solution for people w/o HC who cannot afford it?

Yea, come on guys, get with it; just let nature take it's place and kill people for very treatable conditions. That's it , preach Jebus and compassion, act with disregard, malice and be sociopathic in regard to human suffering. The people have seen that and have spoken, just look at the political make-up.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=working%20hard%20or%20hardly%20working A pathetic attempt at word play and stock phrase of the middle-management careerist asswipe. Often accompanied by finger guns. Right, Mr Cliche; typical RW one-liners, how predictable.

Well thx for playing then, bye-bye. overhead at aflcio event you working hard ? or hardly working ? Nancy, I work far harder than you can fathom. Show me your manicured fingernails.

Well thx for playing then, bye-bye.

Nailed it! So seriously you might as well give up on Lucky it is pointless..... just be ready after November to post Then after Obama gets beat two years later you will get to do it again. How's that stock market crash working out? Hmmmm, 200 pts on friday; > 10,800 - looks like a real bear market to me; you were right. That was about a year ago you predicted a sell-off/crash, laughing at your computer with your moronic co-workers. The market was about 10,200 then, blew up to > 11K, then months later down to 9800 and now back to 10,800. Do you need more time, perhaps another year to make your dream prognostication come true? I sincerely apologize for referencing the DJIA data; what I read. WHat's that, the market come out of teh cellar and rise to 11k while you're in denial? Yep, you are right. If volume is low and teh market is rising, that means fewer people are selling. Great point, people have confidence in the market since your Nazi left. OK, whether it is or not, that doesn't address the awesome, brilliant totally fucking errant prediction you made a year ago. Like I said, hang in long enough and you, the stopped clock will once again be right.

When was it EVER scientific? Case in point; you rule from your diddy and his diddy, I use some wort of scientific reasoning.

Very, very good point Well done! Bravo, bravo [sticks pinky out and sips tea while asking for the grey poupon.]. And really, it takes more intellect to become an engineer than it does to become a waitress. Once you become an engineer, the work is, again, more intellectual in nature, not really the kind of work you're referring to.

No, but she will make more than a lazy one. The answer to the question depends entirely on the job. Many jobs do pay more for working harder, many do not. But, in the end, the pay is pretty much whatever somebody is willing to put out for getting the job done. A Denny's waitress works harder and makes a fraction of what an upscale watress would earn. There is no definite repeatable correlation between how hard a person works and their pay. If you truely believe this, then I understand your employment problems Ah, I see, more understanding me than addressing the point; you're so predictable. BTW, I don't have employment probs, not sure where you drempt that up. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

No, but she will make more than a lazy one. The answer to the question depends entirely on the job. Many jobs do pay more for working harder, many do not. But, in the end, the pay is pretty much whatever somebody is willing to put out for getting the job done. Who works harder for their money; the $5000 a night prostitute or the $100 a trick one? Who worked harder in the past to get where they are? Who knows? I sure don't. Is it harder to be an outcall girl than a street-walker? Not sure there is such a great question, I imagine circumstance that got them there is the difference and ability to organize a call center, etc. That's why a lot of streetwalkers turned to Craigslist, now that that has been done with, they are probably back on the streets. You guys are confusing hard work with organization, some just don't have the intellect to do the latter, that isn't a matter of hard work.

Not at any Denny's I've been to. Go to Joes Stone Crab in Miami Beach and see what a waiter/waitress makes there. Go to a high end strip club and see waht the waitresses make. The "value of the work" is not what we are talking about. It is what you have spun this into. Genius, you created the twist of inputting titty dancer clubs to a crab restaurant, I was trying to only have 1 independent variable, you wanted more making it no longer scentific.

Indeed, since you squirm like a pig in mud, and refuse to clarify. So I'll simplify - you're wrong. Effort has reward. Being lazy (iow, lack of effort) does not. Look at all the rich kids that fuck shit up and get richer as they do, GWB is a great example. :ettuce pickers really can't get more by working harder, very minimal.

Not at any Denny's I've been to. But your work-for-pay relationship fails, even if they work as hard as the upscale waitress, the latter gets way more, so there is no direct relationship between the two.

Now there's a sunstantive issue; let's ditch this question and focus on what's really important. Hey, here's another one: show me a major federal tax cut that has turned into benefit for the economy. IOW's, maj fed tax cut, now the debt is lower or at least the deficit substantially lowers, unemp drops, etc, w/o other major indexes raising. Just a general question, show me a maj fed tax cut where we can then say, 'That's the good it did w/o creating havoc elsewhere.'

No, but she will make more than a lazy one. The answer to the question depends entirely on the job. Many jobs do pay more for working harder, many do not. But, in the end, the pay is pretty much whatever somebody is willing to put out for getting the job done. Who works harder for their money; the $5000 a night prostitute or the $100 a trick one? Couldn't tell you. I never had a $5000/night prostitute . But it's a pretty sure bet both are getting the maximum the market will pay for their services. Good example: A hot looking ho charges a $1k a trick due to her natural looks, an ugly one charges $100 a trick. A lot of it has to do with the ability to market oneself, but that isn't a component of hard work, that's a component of intelligence.

No, but she will make more than a lazy one. The answer to the question depends entirely on the job. Many jobs do pay more for working harder, many do not. But, in the end, the pay is pretty much whatever somebody is willing to put out for getting the job done. A Denny's waitress works harder and makes a fraction of what an upscale watress would earn. There is no definite repeatable correlation between how hard a person works and their pay.

Yea, remember, the R's, who were great since 1861, were just turning into the pigs they are today and the D's were just finding their way. This was a partisan transitional era; Wilson was a moralist pig, at leat the moralists of that era. I'm not crazy about a lot of his BS either, at least he had the guts to raise taxes to pay for the war. Yea, they taught that right after they taught us about how they American Indians freely gave us their country. I believe he did that, show where FDR did that. We can talk Hoover and the Bonus Army since your post started out to be educational and turned into a partisan rant. Ok, you just said a lot of nothing; make a point. You actually had me for a moment, I thought you had an intelligent post. My position is that somone is a dumb piece of shit if they claim one party is and always has been great. Not saying that's you, I see you as more a person who denounces progressives, which isn't a lot diff I guess, but isn't partisan at least. But the presidents who have been strongly beneficial are: - Washinton - Lincoln - FDR - Eisenhower - Clinton - Teddy Roosevelt - Too early, but Obama has flipped a total mess and made it bearable, we'll see where he takes it. Strongly detrimental: - Reagan - GWB - Pierce - Buchannan - Andrew Johnson - Nixon See, there's a mix of parties, as well, the parties switched philosophies in the 19teens to the 1920's. Rememebr, the R's used to be the liberals, the progressives, the D's the conservatives, but that was the 1800's, they switched in the 1920's - ish.

Whatever. Now you're saying something intelligent.

That's a big leap to say 2 - 1 in favor. I wonder if they get dizzy spinning that fast. I dunno, I guess teh AP is a vast, LW conspiracy, unless they provide data that is complimentary to the RW. I'm certain that in your liberal world a 30% approval number actually means 66%. It's not my assertion, it's the AP and yet another conspiracy according to you. I'm certin you linked to the article because you vehemently disagreed with it's assertions. You need a beeper your backing up so fast. There you go, oh purveyor of the ad hominem, if you can't refute the article or its substance, attack the O. Poster. Few on here would bother refuting the basic failings of the math. What else is there to talk about when the premise of the article is 30% approval = 2 to 1 approval? And where do you get the conspiracy thing from? You've been hanging with Rhys too long. 2:1 feel it should go further, what is hard to believe or understand there? They disaprove as it doesn't go far enough. It's your conspiracy; the media is all left and all out to get you.

Brilliant post; totally agree.

That's a big leap to say 2 - 1 in favor. I wonder if they get dizzy spinning that fast. I dunno, I guess teh AP is a vast, LW conspiracy, unless they provide data that is complimentary to the RW. I'm certain that in your liberal world a 30% approval number actually means 66%. It's not my assertion, it's the AP and yet another conspiracy according to you. I'm certin you linked to the article because you vehemently disagreed with it's assertions. You need a beeper your backing up so fast. There you go, oh purveyor of the ad hominem, if you can't refute the article or its substance, attack the O. Poster.

I disagree. I think as more of the 2,000+ page bureaucracy kicks in and the hidden costs come out, people are going to line up to lynch their congressmen. To give him/her hugs/kisses. Only RW logic can place profit above health. You and yours had 8 years, 6 of which you controlled the whole game and the best you could do is shoot down children's HC, which Obama and friends undid 2 weeks into his term. Really, this law might suck, but it's a start over Nazified HC ala GWB andd friends.

That's a big leap to say 2 - 1 in favor. I wonder if they get dizzy spinning that fast. I dunno, I guess teh AP is a vast, LW conspiracy, unless they provide data that is complimentary to the RW. I'm certain that in your liberal world a 30% approval number actually means 66%. It's not my assertion, it's the AP and yet another conspiracy according to you.

That old lie again? Don If they don't have truth, they resort to lies.

You don't know about US Const impeachment and I don't have a clue? Good one. As for N Korea, another lame example set from you, rather than evaluate the US with the rest of the world, you drag one of the worst countries out. Clear you don't have an argument.