Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Announced His Run for Presidency, Then He Skied Tuckerman's

profile picture
T.L.
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 3,008
Gary Johnson.  Sounds like a pretty good dude right?  Never heard of him until today so I used the internets to learn myself some knowledge.  The dude is pretty much pro-everything that is awesome and against everything that sucks to put it simply. 

Here's a few videos of him telling what he's all about.
http://www.youtube.com/user/OurAmericaUMe#p/c/1285B4BE049C2DFB

Here's an excerpt from his press release talking about Tuckerman's
http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/15/gary-johnson-to-announce-run-for-president-then-go-skiing.aspx

I really hope this guy gets a shot.
Apr 22 2011 11:25PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
lol hes wasting money running
Apr 22 2011 11:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Rez4frederick
Posts: 4740 - Karma: 40
Sounds legit. Obama is a waste of space. I hope Ron Paul runs though
Apr 22 2011 11:37PM
0 0
profile picture
T.L.
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 3,008
Yup pretty much.  I think the only thing, imo he 1-ups ron paul on is that johnson is pro choice.  But considering abortion; in the grand scheme of things is a non issue, it's not that important to me. 
Apr 23 2011 12:51AM
0 0
profile picture
Idahoskier420
Posts: 719 - Karma: 86
+ k for a good post
Apr 23 2011 1:13AM
0 0
profile picture
Squid.
Posts: 1904 - Karma: 23
i like him
Apr 23 2011 3:07AM
0 0
profile picture
gr4
Posts: 1499 - Karma: 945
hes a really good guy. i met him when i was younger /claim
Apr 23 2011 3:07AM
0 0
profile picture
COskier
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131
I've gotten into arguments with you before after reading posts full of asinine drivel and realized that doing so is stupid because no matter what I say you just don't quit. Like hitting a Bobo doll, no matter how hard I hit you just come right back with another steaming pile of pseudo-intellictual bullshit.

Also there are really no winners in e-arguments so I will just say this and be out:

Really? You think Social Security is underfunded by the World's GDP? I realize that there are serious problems with this programs future and that cuts need to be made, but are you actually retarded enough to believe the shit you spew?
Apr 23 2011 5:10AM
0 0
profile picture
CousinEddie
Posts: 633 - Karma: 215
This guy knows what needs to happen and he actually has the motivation to do something about it.
Apr 23 2011 10:10AM
0 0
profile picture
CAPITA-DEVOURS
Posts: 1968 - Karma: 4
im not american, but it would be better to have a president who was for the atheletes and stuff like that.
Apr 23 2011 10:25AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
like overturning the fair labor and standards act which would take away laws controlling minimum wage and restricting child labor.

These kids look thrilled... no really, look at that one on the left.

Click for larger image
Apr 23 2011 10:38AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
Walmart Could Easily Pay Its Workers $12 An Hour

http://www.fastcompany.com/1748811/how-can-walmarts-social-responsibility-goals-include-its-workers

Walmart employees earn 14.5 percent less than other workers in large retail companies. Depressing stuff, but there is any easy enough fix: If Walmart implemented a $12 per hour minimum wage for all employees, it would cost the company $3.2 billion. That is a lot of money, unless you're Walmart, in which case it's just 1% of your overall annual $305 billion in sales. Even if Walmart passed on the entire burden of the wage increase to customers, it would only average out to a cost increase of 46 cents per shopping trip.
Apr 23 2011 11:02AM
0 0
profile picture
Emma_Watson
Posts: 4491 - Karma: 6,796
i saw that he was old, white, and a republican. I lost interest right away..
Apr 23 2011 11:10AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
woozy, you're a fucking moron and a prime example of why ron paul should and will never gain any legitimate chance at the presidency... and thank god. let us know when you wake up in the REAL world you jackass... or when you become a rich, space cowboy.
Apr 23 2011 11:18AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
and awesome how you think the second largest restaurant chain in the world cannot afford slight changes in wages... i mean that poor, poor mcdonalds, struggling and trying to keep open... wait a second... didn't they expand to almost every corner of the planet with over 30 stores in NYC alone?! sounds like they could afford a little wage change if they could expand that immensely and also, did you hear about the recent mass hiring they did? ok, i'll stop. you're not worth it.
Apr 23 2011 11:23AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
"duuhhh i like kickedded your ass and uhh like stuff in an thread once uhh.. i'm like so cool that i keep track of all this because my real life is so lame and every uhh thinks i'm dumb but huhhh.. they just don't preciate my intelligence uhhhhhhhhhhh... im gonna kick your ass in this thread also!"

Apr 23 2011 11:25AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
Even if Walmart passed on the entire burden of the wage increase to customers, it would only average out to a cost increase of 46 cents per shopping trip.
Apr 23 2011 11:26AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
McDonalds doesn't want you to eat in. It's not that can't afford to pay a dishwasher, it's that they want you to take their crappy food somewhere else.

If you want to sit down and eat you go to applebees.

Though I'm glad you're thinking of the poor people -- they really need better access to McDonalds food.
Apr 23 2011 11:28AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
exactly. even down to the fucking color of the walls is designed to get you in and out as fast as possible. it had NOTHING to do with costs.
Apr 23 2011 11:30AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
from the the McDonalds corp:

hapter 3: Reuse

Reuse is a basic strategy for reducing materials use and waste generation. Identifying opportunities for introducing reusables throughout McDonald's system -- distribution, bulk storage and food preparation, as well as customer service -- was a large part of the task force's work. The greatest opportunities in this area are behind the counter, where the majority of McDonald's on-premise waste is generated. As set out in the Action Plan, steps to be implemented or tested in 1991 include: replacing heavy-duty, plastic-lined corrugated boxes with durable, washable containers for delivering meat and poultry to McDonald's suppliers; replacing short-lived wooden shipping pallets with durable pallets in the distribution centers; and replacing single portion packages of cleaning supplies with bulk packaging.

McDonald's will also develop a number of pilot tests to explore the potential benefits of reusables in over-the-counter service. This area, we concluded, poses the most formidable challenges to the large-scale conversion to reusables. As a step toward defining solutions, the task force identified five major challenges to implementing reusables in a quick-service restaurant system. These are: (1) customer expectations; (2) health, sanitation and safety issues; (3) McDonald's operating system; (4) dishware collection, handling, washing and resanitizing; and, (5) cost and data uncertainty.

While any one challenge might be met in isolation from the others, the real challenge for McDonald's is to overcome all of them at once. For example, McDonald's Engineering Department could design high-volume dishwashers suitable to the task, and a shift to reusables for customer service could conceivably produce savings in expenditures on disposable packaging. However, other major issues remain unresolved, such as the capital costs of the system, pilferage, the added labor costs to collect dishware and load and unload the dishwasher, the economic and environmental effects of energy and water used in dishwashing, and the ability of a restaurant crew to operate the equipment in a way that consistently meets sanitation standards.

We agreed that reusable dishware systems from conventional full-service restaurants cannot simply be transposed to McDonald's while maintaining its high-volume, high-speed food service system. The task force also discussed more long-term, theoretical options for reconfiguring McDonald's equipment and operations to incorporate food-service reusables.

Ultimately, full resolution of these issues will depend on incremental testing and R&D activities of the type that are central to McDonald's operations and packaging development.
Apr 23 2011 11:30AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
it had a little bit to do with costs. but it's more complicated than some guy not wanting to pay a dishwasher.
Apr 23 2011 11:31AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
hahahahahaha, really? i mean realllly???
Apr 23 2011 11:34AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
well yeah that's true, it always has something to do with costs but the base of it was turnover rates... and apparently they did change over the past few years to make it more "friendly" in a horrible attempt to change their public image... haha
Apr 23 2011 11:37AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
For example, McDonald's Engineering Department could design high-volume dishwashers suitable to the task, and a shift to reusables for customer service could conceivably produce savings in expenditures on disposable packaging. However, other major issues remain unresolved, such as the capital costs of the system, pilferage, the added labor costs to collect dishware and load and unload the dishwasher, the economic and environmental effects of energy and water used in dishwashing, and the ability of a restaurant crew to operate the equipment in a way that consistently meets sanitation standards.
Apr 23 2011 11:39AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
hahahaha THEY DO THAT ALREADY!!!

god this is incredible how fucking dumb you are. talk about missing the sweet spot, you're god damned overshooting into the parking lot.
Apr 23 2011 11:42AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
he kind of sucks at running...
Apr 23 2011 11:43AM
0 0
profile picture
Dhane
Posts: 3866 - Karma: 1,722
laughing at you bud. pretty sure you have no idea what your talking about at all.
Apr 23 2011 11:44AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
hahahahahahhahaha, another banger of an ignorant comment!

Apr 23 2011 11:45AM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
woozy, you'd be a great member if you weren't so condescending. Interesting ideas and a clear knowledge of what you're talking about, but don't look down upon everyone like you're a god amongst ns'ers.
Apr 23 2011 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
nope because that'd be like explaining evolution to a creationist. its more fun to sit back and wait to see what other glorious nuggets of knowledge gold come flying out of that shit pipe of yours.
Apr 23 2011 11:52AM
0 0
profile picture
JewRad
Posts: 432 - Karma: 23
I read that last sentence as "I hope he gets shot" at first. Haha but seems like a good candidate.
Apr 23 2011 11:53AM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
I agree with woozy. pay people what they are worth. Walmart has no problem hiring. If they did, they would have to incentivize their employees more. None of their employees are having their civil liberties taken from them. They all wake up every morning and are willing to go to work for the wages they make. If minimum wage did not exist they would likely make even less money and Walmart would still not have trouble finding employees. Why? Because their employees don't do very much and they aren't very good at what they do. Government needs to keep their hands out of our business.
Apr 23 2011 11:56AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
My point was that you're oversimplifying the situation -- paying dishwashers is 1/5th of the answer.

but we can drop it because you're satisfied with being 20% correct.

There are plenty of people who are paid to pump gas. It's called New Jersey.
Apr 23 2011 11:58AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
The point was that Walmart is paying below the industry average, it has nothing to do with how their employees don't do very much or aren't very good at what they do.
Apr 23 2011 12:01PM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
yeah but to be fair, it's law there that they have to do that. but there are places that pump for you and even clean your windshields, where it isn't law, regardless.
Apr 23 2011 12:07PM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
exactly and to generalize the whole wal-mart work force as terrible workers is on the same level as saying all mexicans are lazy. oh and its funny how the wal-mart 30 min. away from here starts people at 11/HR and yet the ignorance still rolls in that they'll go under if that were to happen at other stores... hahaha
Apr 23 2011 12:14PM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
"hey guys let's apply the basic laws of economics to complex economic situations! that'd work just dandy!"

just because what he says is true doesn't make it always true for every situation...
Apr 23 2011 12:26PM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
ok, that is fair. but if people want to continue working for them, i don't see a problem. It has been too easy to get by comfortably in this country. People can find jobs that pay them $8/hr because of minimum wage stipulations. Jobs that dont actually merit $8/hr. They can take this $8/hr and find government housing, government issued food stamps, and government medical care. What is the point at trying to get a college degree, trying to get a good job, trying to be successful in life when it is so much easier to be lazy and take all the hand-outs you can get. Of course nobody envies a person that lives like that, but if you are lazy its not a bad way to live.
Apr 23 2011 12:26PM
0 0
profile picture
PeterWojnar
Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678
I'm with woozy on this one, though he may be a riding the high horse just a little bit. That there are institutions required by the government to pay their employees $8 an hour does not mean those employees are worth $8 an hour— or that those same employees should be paid $8 in a state where minimum wage is $6.

I work in a bike shop, I am paid something to the tune of $12-20 an hour depending on how quickly I work (I get paid based on the bikes I build, not on the clock). The money I earn is directly correlated to how quickly and efficiently I do my work. My work is worth that much because if you pulled a bum off the street and told him to do my job, he'd not be able to do it right, and other shop mechanics would have to correct his work when he finished.

On the other hand, if I walked into Wal-mart and asked for a job, I would expect exactly nothing above the bare minimum they're allowed to pay me. And I'd be ecstatic they're paying me more than I'm worth to them as an employee. I'd not be paid for doing a job that not everyone can do, nor would I be paid based on the work that I'd do— instead, I'd be paid for the hours and minutes I spend inside the store. And frankly, those hours and minutes are not worth $8 an hour to Wal-Mart, because I'm a new employee... but I am grateful that they pay me what they do, and would still be grateful for even less because I am perfectly aware that they could take any bum off the street, and he'd be able do the same work as I.

That Wal-Mart pays it's employees "below the industry standard" does not mean it pays them less than they're worth.
Apr 23 2011 12:52PM
0 0
profile picture
CJHski
Posts: 2384 - Karma: 126
RALPH NADER
Apr 23 2011 12:55PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
Try living a month on $3 a day (average SNAP benefits) -- tell me how easy it is to live off hand-outs.

unless you're talking about these lazy people...

"Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?"

http://www.thefinancialphysician.com/blog/?p=6479

Apr 23 2011 12:55PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
hey woozy stop enjoying the weekend, provided to you by those crazy libs and unions, and get back to work.
Apr 23 2011 1:00PM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
you work at bc.com, right? well do you think all those kids who sit on the computer all day doing live help are really worth what they're paid? because i know for a fact that whoever you're chatting with has no fucking clue what you're asking of them and they just BS answers... i mean if you REALLY want to talk about being paid what you're worth and all, then those people who work the warehouse, constantly doing hard labor, deserve twice as much as a kid sitting at a computer listening to dumb asses talking about north face vests. and saying that slightly higher wages will make college obsolete is absolutely retarded. you want to talk about coasting through life? how about you tackle unemployment before taking up minimum wages.
Apr 23 2011 1:03PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
is the yuan artificially low?
Apr 23 2011 1:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Italian.Stallion
Posts: 564 - Karma: 101

So if wages are directly correlated to productivity (I'm assuming this is what you mean), as wages go up shouldn't productivity also go up?

Apr 23 2011 1:48PM
0 0
profile picture
forum10
Posts: 421 - Karma: 2
hahaha my god... if you want people to argue with you, you should REALLY make sure that you know what they're talking about.
Apr 23 2011 1:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Italian.Stallion
Posts: 564 - Karma: 101
"Bob builds chairs for a living. He builds $5 dollars with of chairs in an hour. His employer pays him $4 an hour. P-Face and his moronic liberal friends just look at Bob's wage and say "ZOMG $4 an hour must suck! its his employers fault he is earning so little!" (completely overlooking Bob's productivity). So P-Face decides to pass a minimum wage law of $6 an hour on friday. AWESOME! That will really save Bob right? Bob shows up to work the next monday and makes $6 an hour. But what P-Face forgets is that you cannot legislate Bob to have more productivity, so Bob still produces $5 worth of chairs in an hour. So rather than making his employer $1 an hour his employer loses $1 an hour. How long do you suppose Bob will have his job? Not very long.... Its fucking basic economics."

So if you were bob, you wouldn't increase productivity to maintain your job at your new wage?
Apr 23 2011 2:02PM
0 0
profile picture
T.L.
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 3,008
That's awesome.  Keep us in the loop of how things are going.
Apr 23 2011 2:12PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
Click for larger image


inb4 woozy not justifying this post with a response
Apr 23 2011 2:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Italian.Stallion
Posts: 564 - Karma: 101

I guess it really depends on the person, but the question I'm really trying to ask is...

Do low wage employees get payed lower amounts because they have a low productivity?  Or is their productivity low because of their lower initial wage?

Apr 23 2011 2:20PM
0 0
profile picture
ace_
Posts: 3189 - Karma: 39
In no way i am going to get into this, but wooz is right
Apr 23 2011 2:25PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)