Wal-Mart employees should be thankful they have a job

[Pandora]

It seems to me there are enough people who work at WalMart who need extra cash who wouldnt mind coming in early. Enough of them to counter those who just dont want to. Its strange this should be an issue at all.

 

[Pandora]

I once fired someone in Los Angeles--for stealing--caught red-handed.
Grand Larceny.
The State of California said that was not a good enough reason to terminate someone.

California is a pathetic excuse for a state. I wish every normal person would leave them to their own stupidity. We left when I was a kid, and I am so glad we did. I would hate to have grown up in that garbage dump!

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Let's get back to the basics that founded the country.

Want to work?
Get a job--talk someone into wanting you to work there.
Ask what they pay.
Don't like it--don't go to work there.
How easy is that!!!

 

[Johnny Tremain]

California is a pathetic excuse for a state. I wish every normal person would leave them to their own stupidity. We left when I was a kid, and I am so glad we did. I would hate to have grown up in that garbage dump!

I liked the Laboratory of Socialism it was.
I learned all about it there.
It is the model for all of America to see.

I also learned why so many people wanted to be rich.
In order to live away from all the dregs of humanity and carnies that big cities attract.
Gated communities.
Liberals always love minorities and UNIVERSALLY live in the most white and un-ethnic communities they can find.
They LOVE gated neighborhoods where the trash that votes for them cannot even DRIVE THROUGH.
And they NEVER, EVER send their kids to public schools.
Ha!

 

[steveox]

I got a better idea. Why dont we all dont Pay the IRS this April 15th? When Cops pull you over ask you for your license and registration why dont we all go tell him go F**K yourself

 

[PLC1]

I liked the Laboratory of Socialism it was.
I learned all about it there.
It is the model for all of America to see.

I also learned why so many people wanted to be rich.
In order to live away from all the dregs of humanity and carnies that big cities attract.
Gated communities.
Liberals always love minorities and UNIVERSALLY live in the most white and un-ethnic communities they can find.
They LOVE gated neighborhoods where the trash that votes for them cannot even DRIVE THROUGH.
And they NEVER, EVER send their kids to public schools.
Ha!

So, the people living in those lily white gated communities are liberals? Really?

What is your definition of "liberal" anyway?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

So, the people living in those lily white gated communities are liberals? Really?

What is your definition of "liberal" anyway?

I said they lived there--not they were the only ones.
They live among the rich.
They don't like poor people.
Only their votes.

How many live in housing projects?
Or so-so neighborhoods?

 

[PLC1]

I said they lived there--not they were the only ones.
They live among the rich.
They don't like poor people.
Only their votes.

How many live in housing projects?
Or so-so neighborhoods?

If you buy the idea that "liberals" depend on government, then it follows that most of them live in housing projects and so so neighborhoods.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

If you buy the idea that "liberals" depend on government, then it follows that most of them live in housing projects and so so neighborhoods.

No--it does not.

 

[PLC1]

No--it does not.

Really?

Then, you must believe that the famous 47 million who depend on government assistance must live in lily white, upscale, gated communities, and not in housing projects or so so neighborhoods.

My definition of "liberal" is someone who believes in big, powerful government as a solution to problems rather than a problem in and of itself.

What's yours?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Really?

Then, you must believe that the famous 47 million who depend on government assistance must live in lily white, upscale, gated communities, and not in housing projects or so so neighborhoods.

My definition of "liberal" is someone who believes in big, powerful government as a solution to problems rather than a problem in and of itself.

What's yours?

My definition of "liberal" is someone who believes in big, powerful government as a solution to problems rather than a problem in and of itself.

 

[PLC1]

My definition of "liberal" is someone who believes in big, powerful government as a solution to problems rather than a problem in and of itself.

Excellent. Then we agree.

Now, where do people with that belief live? Where do they fall in the socio economic totem pole? It seems to me that some are on the bottom, some in the middle, and others on the top. Do you agree with that also?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Excellent. Then we agree.

Now, where do people with that belief live? Where do they fall in the socio economic totem pole? It seems to me that some are on the bottom, some in the middle, and others on the top. Do you agree with that also?

"No."

There are liberals by choice--there are liberals by happenstance.
The latter wants the "rich" to give them things.
The former wants the "rich"--other than themselves, of course, and their families (Kennedys)--to give the poor some things.

 

[PLC1]

"No."

There are liberals by choice--there are liberals by happenstance.
The latter wants the "rich" to give them things.
The former wants the "rich"--other than themselves, of course, and their families (Kennedys)--to give the poor some things.

Let's see if I understand that:

Some are liberals because they want the rich to give them things. Others are liberals because they want the rich to give the poor some things.

If that is correct, then some liberals are poor (wanting the rich to give them things) or perhaps middle class (wanting the rich to give the poor things). Are any of them wealthy, and wanting to give the poor things?

It makes sense that a wealthy person who wants the wealthy to give to the poor would simply bypass government and go to private charity, much like Mitt Romney did in his personal life.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Let's see if I understand that:

Some are liberals because they want the rich to give them things. Others are liberals because they want the rich to give the poor some things.

If that is correct, then some liberals are poor (wanting the rich to give them things) or perhaps middle class (wanting the rich to give the poor things). Are any of them wealthy, and wanting to give the poor things? They would not be liberals--or I certainly have not seen any.

It makes sense that a wealthy person who wants the wealthy to give to the poor would simply bypass government and go to private charity, much like Mitt Romney did in his personal life.

Bingo.