Klem old genius, answer this question if you would. It will help to establish a baseline for your current level of critical thinking capacity, which I estimate at somewhere south of 1/2 of one percent:
If it was 1955, the first year the polio vaccine was introduced, …
and you were in 1st grade in 1955 …
and if your parents declined to allow their doctor to administer the polio vaccine to you because …
“If klem has a 90% chance of dying without experimental treatment, I’d say give it to him for sure. But with a 95% chance of living, I’ll go with the devil I know, and skip the experiment thank you.” …
What would you think of your parents’ judgement? Especially if you ended up in an iron lung, or permanently crippled, from polio?
It could be OUR welcome.
plural noun: typosa
To*o* bad about the spelling error you made.
Will you please explain to everyone your justification for the claim that BLM ‘condones terrorizing, burning and rioting?’
Burning, and violent actions (your accusation of “terrorizing” and “rioting”), certainly occur during BLM street protests.
These, and ANY unlawful actions, always detract from/undermine the legitimacy of the protesters and — worse — the grievances such protests are organized to highlight.
Organizers and on-scene participants of such street protests, outside of exhorting strict law abiding behavior, have little recourse against those who break laws other than taking the law into their own hands by physically restraining those committing acts of violence. At considerable physical risk to themselves.
I would encourage those who participate in BLM public protest events to be prepared to use their cell phones to capture images of lawbreaking individuals/groups in their midst. This would put those persons at risk of violence from those lawbreakers, and negative subsequent consequences if their identity is discovered by perpetrators arrested by police.
I’m not sure what else BLM could do to prevent violence by rogue actors during their protest rallies, and I do not agree that the organization should shoulder any blame for such actor’s unless it is proven responsible in some way.
‘And Biden is OK with that.’
I’d like to see verification for this claim of what fast food jobs were ‘meant to be’: when was it promulgated? by whom? was the claim espoused prior to the first restaurant which is now one in the classification “fast food”?
Is it more likely that the job classification you togoo cites is one designated by economists prior to its literal existence, or is it a post hoc identifier applied at a specific point in US history to describe a specific condition which existed at that time, but which presently no longer obtains?
What are known as “fast food chain restaurants” proliferated following WWII, often staffed by part-time college & high school aged employees.
If those restaurants were presently prohibited from hiring full-time employees who are not enrolled in an educational institution, how many (IF any) could operate at their present capacity and number of daily hours?
How many present full time employees of these establishments are acquiring skills which transfer to other — presumably “superior” — employment opportunities in America?
How many of these other superior employment opportunities are presently available, awaiting qualified applicants (which by togoo definition would include fast food franchise employees empowered by the skills they have acquired as a result of fast food franchise employment)?
Denigrating fast food employee’s as justification for removing that category of employee from inclusion as a labor category, qualified for sufficient compensation for their labor to meet the minimum requirements for housing/health care/child raising expenses/transportation/all other ordinary life experiences/savings & investment capacity, is simply justification for avoidable (through societal regulation aka rules) capitalist labor exploitation.
Same old hierarchical wealth privilege as has existed for millennia. Never justifiable at its inception, not justifiable now. Doesn’t gotta be just because it’s always been that way.
Sufficient votes to pass $15/hr min wage legislation presently simply do not exist, as evidenced by the above comments Ted Rall refers to. Minimum amount of publicly expressed desire by JB necessary to convince TR that said legislation is a priority of the Biden administration: 1 mention/month? 1 mention/week? 1 mention day? 2 mentions/day? 3 mentions/day? 3+ mentions day?
Does public reiteration of desire for said minimum wage, following pronounced public rejection by > 20% of members of the president’s own party, enhance or diminish the chance for success, and is such public iteration a superior strategy to silent behind-the-scenes discussions with recalcitrant party members? Discuss.
Is silence proof of absence of administration strategy/activity to achieve this domestic policy goal? If your response is a definitive yes or no to this question, what evidence can you provide in support of your claim?
2nd time within minutes you offer advice you particularly could benefit from but obviously elect to shun.
Cole, then west on Overland to a DQ? Hold the phone, does Lola live in Boise? I come here to comments to find out, and sure enough she does as several readers confirm. Nice!