If These Protestors Want To Really Help People

[Guest Doyo]

I was thinking that if all the protestors want to really make a

difference then they should get jobs at McDonalds.

Let's say you have 1 million people in the world, who are

each spending 10 hours a week protesting. This

equals out to 10 million work hours. If they were

getting $6 an hour at McDonalds then that

would be 60 million dollars a week they could

give out as charity to the hungry Iraqis or

whoever.

 

Protesting about something that has already been decided

and can't be changed = a waste of time.

 

Working for the man = really helping people.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest MrRant]

The issue is that these protestors don't actually want to have anything to do with Iraqis. They don't want to work any harder than taking a Sharpie to poster board and would rather have MY tax dollars go to helping a foreign country instead of improving education or even roads.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The issue is that these protestors don't actually want to have anything to do with Iraqis. They don't want to work any harder than taking a Sharpie to poster board and would rather have MY tax dollars go to helping a foreign country instead of improving education or even roads.

No, I'd say they would rather have tax dollars going to improving our roads and education AND foreign countries rather than returned into the pockets of billionaires.

[Guest B-X]

The issue is that these protestors don't actually want to have anything to do with Iraqis. They don't want to work any harder than taking a Sharpie to poster board and would rather have MY tax dollars go to helping a foreign country instead of improving education or even roads.

The real issue is that the pro-war people are blood-thirsty war mongers who have no understanding of current affairs. All they do is blindly follow, Bah Bah, Bah.

 

 

Wow, spouting bullshit is fun~!!!

[Guest T®ITEC]

No lie.

 

So tell me. Our president is both a Communist and a Nazi.. how?

 

 

I saw some person with a sign in their rear-window today, referring to Bush as both a Nazi and a Communist. Of course, the sign was blocking out the entire rear window, which I'm sure is some sort of illegal practice.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

McDonald's isnt hiring. They're laying off actually, like many other businesses because of the RECESSION that the country has been mired in for over a year. But somehow we found billions of dollars to drop bombs on residential Iraqi neighborhoods.

[Guest Mad Dog]

Yeah maybe we wouldn't be doing that if they didn't put their anti-aircraft weapons there.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

The issue is that these protestors don't actually want to have anything to do with Iraqis.  They don't want to work any harder than taking a Sharpie to poster board and would rather have MY tax dollars go to helping a foreign country instead of improving education or even roads.

No, I'd say they would rather have tax dollars going to improving our roads and education AND foreign countries rather than returned into the pockets of billionaires.

And your point is?

 

Those "billionaires" are the ones who pay the majority of the taxes, so why shouldn't they get their money back? I just cannot see the logic in giving tax cuts to people who barely pay taxes now.

 

You'd change your tune if you were one of the billionaires who's money was at stake.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

Yeah maybe we wouldn't be doing that if they didn't put their anti-aircraft weapons there.

It's always better to casually ignore simple facts like that when they get in the way of one's stupid, "what about the children?" whiny-bitch argument.

 

How about acknowledging the fact that Saddam's blatant use of his own people as shields against our bombs in an attempt to win sympathy for his people (and spur more anti-U.S. feelings around the world) is just one more reason why he's an evil motherfucker and needs to be removed immediately.

 

I swear, you people amaze me sometimes...

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

Yeah Boss Tones fan you're right. Screw the Iraqi chidlren. This whole mission is to liberate them (so they say) but it's much more easier to dismiss concerns for their well-being as whiny-bitchy arguments.

 

Was it whiny and bitchy when we mourned for the 9/11 victims?

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

McDonald's isnt hiring. They're laying off actually, like many other businesses because of the RECESSION that the country has been mired in for over a year. But somehow we found billions of dollars to drop bombs on residential Iraqi neighborhoods.

They wouldn't hire me, because I can't cook. I just sit on my ass on live of my Student Financial Aid.

[Guest Mad Dog]

Yeah I guess we're handing out all that food and water for our own good then.

 

Maybe I would think similar to you if the Iraqi people you know weren't welcoming the us with open arms.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

Yeah Boss Tones fan you're right. Screw the Iraqi chidlren. This whole mission is to liberate them (so they say) but it's much more easier to dismiss concerns for their well-being as whiny-bitchy arguments.

 

Was it whiny and bitchy when we mourned for the 9/11 victims?

Ok, a few things:

 

- You misunderstand me. I don't want anyone, except Saddam and his evil cronies, to die. No innocent Iraqis, no Coalition soldiers, nobody. Hell, I would LOVE to see the vast majority of the Iraqi army just surrender so that we can get the war over with as quickly as possible, with as little bloodshed as possible. The whole point of my original post was to try and get you to realize that it isn't necessarily our fault that civilians have been hit -- we couldn't help it because Saddam intentionally put them in the way so we come out looking like the bad guys. The man is pure evil.

 

- There isn't going to be a peaceful solution to this (obviously). This is war, and war means casualties. Do I like it? No, not particularly. But that's the way it is.

 

- Do you actually believe the Iraqi propoganda that we've been intentionally targeting civilians? If you do, then you're ignorant.

 

We've been doing everything that we can to AVOID hitting civilian targets, which is why there were still a few military installations/sites left in Baghdad after our original 'shock and awe' bombings -- we DIDN'T hit those because they were smack in the middle of civilian areas.

 

In hindsight, that might have been a tactical mistake on our part, because it means that we didn't destroy all their possible means of communication and retaliation. Now that the remaining weaponry and troop installments are beginning to fight back, we have absolutely no choice but to blow them to Hell. As regrettable as it is, the chances of some innocent people being trapped in the bombing is inevitable.

 

But what would you rather have happen: a relentless assault on Baghdad so that when we make our move we'll be able to win the war more quickly, or a campaign that aims to spare everyone possible but ends up turning into a longer, more costly (in both monetary and body count figures) war because we failed to destroy the Iraqi regime before they have a chance to really dig in and fight back.

 

- I think we're treating the people of Iraq pretty well. A lot of them have more to eat and drink now than they have had in years. I've also lots of pictures of our forces caring for those that have been wounded accidentally.

 

- It wasn't bitchy or whiny when we mourned for 9/11. Or at least it wasn't for me. I seem to remember being extremely pissed off.

[Guest Brian]

So are we going to evict all the evil bastards in the world who do this to their people after this? Are we going to be charging into Burhma and North Korea?

 

If I was a billionaire, I'd be happy with what I keep because it's a hell of a lot more than what I have now.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

So are we going to evict all the evil bastards in the world who do this to their people after this? Are we going to be charging into Burhma and North Korea?

If we determine that they are a potential threat to us or our allies, then yes, we should charge in and get them out.

 

If I was a billionaire, I'd be happy with what I keep because it's a hell of a lot more than what I have now.

Well then that's the difference between you and me. My being a billionaire would certainly be more than I have now, but it wouldn't make me any more open to the idea of someone telling me that I shouldn't get to keep my money just because I happen to have more than most everybody else, or because I can "afford" paying out a higher share of taxes. It's mine damn it -- I earned it, I should get to keep it.

 

Now does that mean that I wouldn't give a good share of it to some others who are less fortunate? No. But if my money is going to be given away to others, then I prefer to have it distributed according to how I see fit. There is no way that any government grunt is more qualified than I am to tell me how my money should and/or will be spent.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The issue is that these protestors don't actually want to have anything to do with Iraqis.  They don't want to work any harder than taking a Sharpie to poster board and would rather have MY tax dollars go to helping a foreign country instead of improving education or even roads.

No, I'd say they would rather have tax dollars going to improving our roads and education AND foreign countries rather than returned into the pockets of billionaires.

And your point is?

 

Those "billionaires" are the ones who pay the majority of the taxes, so why shouldn't they get their money back? I just cannot see the logic in giving tax cuts to people who barely pay taxes now.

 

You'd change your tune if you were one of the billionaires who's money was at stake.

Actually they don't see. When Bush returned 15 years worth of taxes to these guys last year, it kind of nullified any taxes that they did pay. Also, the whole point of the tax cut was supposedly to "spark the economy" so I guess you would have to say that plan was a horrible failure. There is plenty of corporate welfare going on and no one seems to mind about that when the rich need their refund in order to buy a private jet, yet when folks in the lower class or poverty need money for food, or a roof over their head, suddenly they are "lazy bastards" who don't work.

[Guest B-X]

It's mine damn it -- I earned it, I should get to keep it

 

Thats the problem. Most of these Fortune 500 guys did not earn that money. They have their workers do EVERYTHING for them. They just sit back and reap benefits.

[Guest Powerplay]

It's mine damn it -- I earned it, I should get to keep it

 

Thats the problem. Most of these Fortune 500 guys did not earn that money. They have their workers do EVERYTHING for them. They just sit back and reap benefits.

I find this view to be utter crap. You know, people in management DO do work. You need someone to direct people and coordinate, which is often much harder to do than simply going to a computer and programming something. Those rich old CEOs didn't start out as rich old CEOs. They started low as well, and they moved up. They have to make just as many decisions as lower people, if not more. Not to say that lower people don't do anything, but the upper part of the company does just as much as the lower part of the company. That's like saying the President of the United States has it easy because he's at the top and he doesn't really do anything. Same types of power, same ideas, same stress.

[Guest Brian]

Problem with not having them pay taxes is who pays to keep them protected and to stay on call 24 hours in case their in a car accident? Heck, their cutting the Army's pension plan by 18 billion dollars and still giving out a monstrous amount back in taxes whil asking these kids to go to war.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"McDonald's isnt hiring. They're laying off actually, like many other businesses because of the RECESSION that the country has been mired in for over a year. But somehow we found billions of dollars to drop bombs on residential Iraqi neighborhoods."

 

Apply at your local Golden Arches -- I'm sure they can squeeze you in.

 

If that doesn't work, there's always BK...

[Guest Brian]

Burger King's having huge financial problems aren't they? They've practally shut down every store in Seattle.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Yes, but you can still get a job flipping burgers -- lord knows ever fast-food joint out where I live is hiring...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

In smaller areas, it isn't quite so easy.

 

Couple that in with the fact that most McD's hire minority candidates more than caucasians...

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

protesters on BOTH sides are being silly and stupid.

 

Being against or for the war is fine...that's your RIGHT and so is protesting.

 

But Pouring out all your French wine and Being Ignorant is just F*cking pathetic.

 

So is having a "Die IN" on busy streets.

 

Protesters on BOTH sides need to grow up.

 

My younger brother is protesting the war by wearing a shirt that says, "War, What is it good for? ...Absolutely Nothing."

 

that is a non-ghey way to protest.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Sing it again, man.

[Guest NoCalMike]

It's mine damn it -- I earned it, I should get to keep it

 

Thats the problem. Most of these Fortune 500 guys did not earn that money. They have their workers do EVERYTHING for them. They just sit back and reap benefits.

I find this view to be utter crap. You know, people in management DO do work. You need someone to direct people and coordinate, which is often much harder to do than simply going to a computer and programming something. Those rich old CEOs didn't start out as rich old CEOs. They started low as well, and they moved up. They have to make just as many decisions as lower people, if not more. Not to say that lower people don't do anything, but the upper part of the company does just as much as the lower part of the company. That's like saying the President of the United States has it easy because he's at the top and he doesn't really do anything. Same types of power, same ideas, same stress.

So untrue the above statement is. Most corporations do not hire managers/supervisors from the inside, they hire people straight out of college because they want their management to not be able to deal with the blue collar workers because then they will automatically be sympathetic with their needs over the companies bottomline. You can't call this assesment a lie, because I have witnessed it first hand in 3 companies I have worked with. I am not saying companies NEVER hire from within, but it is getting less and less frequent as more corporations get more sneaky by the day.

[Guest Powerplay]

It's mine damn it -- I earned it, I should get to keep it

 

Thats the problem. Most of these Fortune 500 guys did not earn that money. They have their workers do EVERYTHING for them. They just sit back and reap benefits.

I find this view to be utter crap. You know, people in management DO do work. You need someone to direct people and coordinate, which is often much harder to do than simply going to a computer and programming something. Those rich old CEOs didn't start out as rich old CEOs. They started low as well, and they moved up. They have to make just as many decisions as lower people, if not more. Not to say that lower people don't do anything, but the upper part of the company does just as much as the lower part of the company. That's like saying the President of the United States has it easy because he's at the top and he doesn't really do anything. Same types of power, same ideas, same stress.

So untrue the above statement is. Most corporations do not hire managers/supervisors from the inside, they hire people straight out of college because they want their management to not be able to deal with the blue collar workers because then they will automatically be sympathetic with their needs over the companies bottomline. You can't call this assesment a lie, because I have witnessed it first hand in 3 companies I have worked with. I am not saying companies NEVER hire from within, but it is getting less and less frequent as more corporations get more sneaky by the day.

You take what I say wrong. Managers and Supervisors still start off low on the scale and work themselves up. It's not like someone starts off as a CEO of a corporation. They still have to do work to get up to the top, like successfully managing things, making good business deals and such. Those do take skill and hard work to do as well.

[Guest NoCalMike]

It's mine damn it -- I earned it, I should get to keep it

 

Thats the problem. Most of these Fortune 500 guys did not earn that money. They have their workers do EVERYTHING for them. They just sit back and reap benefits.

I find this view to be utter crap. You know, people in management DO do work. You need someone to direct people and coordinate, which is often much harder to do than simply going to a computer and programming something. Those rich old CEOs didn't start out as rich old CEOs. They started low as well, and they moved up. They have to make just as many decisions as lower people, if not more. Not to say that lower people don't do anything, but the upper part of the company does just as much as the lower part of the company. That's like saying the President of the United States has it easy because he's at the top and he doesn't really do anything. Same types of power, same ideas, same stress.

So untrue the above statement is. Most corporations do not hire managers/supervisors from the inside, they hire people straight out of college because they want their management to not be able to deal with the blue collar workers because then they will automatically be sympathetic with their needs over the companies bottomline. You can't call this assesment a lie, because I have witnessed it first hand in 3 companies I have worked with. I am not saying companies NEVER hire from within, but it is getting less and less frequent as more corporations get more sneaky by the day.

You take what I say wrong. Managers and Supervisors still start off low on the scale and work themselves up. It's not like someone starts off as a CEO of a corporation. They still have to do work to get up to the top, like successfully managing things, making good business deals and such. Those do take skill and hard work to do as well.

Ok, how many managers/supervisors do you know that have made it to the Corporate Executive Office and/or a board of trustees type position(sanz someone who started their own business).

 

Most people that make to be a CEO were hired to eventually become that. No one is hired as a scrub with a "dream of making it to the top" Politics run most companies, in most cases it's who you know, not how hard you work.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The key word is "most".

 

Although, for every Harken Energies (Bush Jr. taking over on his father's name), there's a Microsoft.

[Guest DrTom]

Let's not forget the Dilbert Principle here:

The most ineffective workers are systematically moved to where they can do the least damage: management.