Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 10 Nov 2006 21:00 In article <455485EB.84F083F4(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. > > Why ? Why should the federal government tell anyone what their worth is? > > I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr. Some states are higher (Vermont is $7.25 and going up). I'm not sure anyone really works for the minimum (MacD's is advertising $9.00/hr.). > > Can anyone actually live on that ? How one lives is not the function of the federal government, nor the employer. If one can't live on what the employer is offering, find another employer. -- Keith
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 21:11 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fbe6a888f3be24e989ae5(a)news.individual.net... > In article <455485EB.84F083F4(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >> >> Why ? > > Why should the federal government tell anyone what their worth is? It isnt a case of saying what a persons "worth" is - the person choses that by the job they apply for. >> >> I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. > > The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr. Some states are higher > (Vermont is $7.25 and going up). I'm not sure anyone really works > for the minimum (MacD's is advertising $9.00/hr.). If no one works for minimum, what is the problem with it? >> >> Can anyone actually live on that ? > > How one lives is not the function of the federal government, nor > the employer. If one can't live on what the employer is offering, > find another employer. So why is minimum wage bad? If it is, indeed, too low to live on then employers who pay it will loose staff to ones who pay better. The minimum wage becomes a safety net and creates an idea of what can be considered an "unfair" wage.
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 21:37 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > > Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. > > > > Why ? > > Why should the federal government tell anyone what their worth is? > > > > I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. > > The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr. Some states are higher > (Vermont is $7.25 and going up). I'm not sure anyone really works > for the minimum (MacD's is advertising $9.00/hr.). So why the fuss over increasing what would seem to be a notional minimum ? Graham
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 21:37 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4554FF00.B444C9D0(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>>T Wake wrote: >> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>T Wake wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>For credit points: What cease fire violations did Saddam commit? >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Didn't they 'lock on' to various flight with their AA radars a few >> >>>>>times ? >> >>>> >> >>>>Yes. Any AD radar activations within the NFZ were followed up by >> >>>>strikes as >> >>>>were any AD radar which was suspected of painting Coalition aircraft. >> >>> >> >>>That used to be called "target illumination." When >> >>>detected it is rightfully understood to be a threat. >> > >> > Yes it is a threat. What is your point? >> > >> > >> >>>"Painting"? >> >> >> >>So ? >> >> >> >> >> >>>Now there's a bit of doublespeak for you. >> >> >> >>What's your point ? >> > >> > >> > Not sure why it considers "painting" doublespeak, seems fairly >> > appropriate >> > considering how AD radar systems work. >> >> Because it is doublespeak, concealing the threatening nature >> of the act. But you knew that. > > Good Lord ! > > Talk about grabbing at straws. Yes he is clutching for dear life. There is the same threat by a radar paint as there is by a soldier looking at you with binoculars. The platforms which were taken out during the NFZ enforcement included height finders, range finders, air traffic control systems and (yes) AD equipment. I am not sure what Unsettled thinks he is gaining here. My original post did say "Any AD radar activations within the NFZ were followed up by strikes as were any AD radar which was suspected of painting Coalition aircraft" - so I don't know why he thinks I am trying to hide the "threat" nature of an Air Defence system. It is likely that Unsettled is blinded by his urge to argue and insult, and as such is no longer aware of my stance on this particular part of the argument.
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 21:44
T Wake wrote: > I am not sure what Unsettled thinks he is gaining here. My original post did > say "Any AD radar activations within the NFZ were followed up by strikes as > were any AD radar which was suspected of painting Coalition aircraft" - so I > don't know why he thinks I am trying to hide the "threat" nature of an Air > Defence system. I suspect he's inferring that your use of the word 'paint' as opposed to 'illuminate' was a politically inspired choice. Graham |