Now the Tea Party dominated Republicans want to enslave children! Yet they have the audacity to say that violent insurrection is needed against those who oppose them!!!

by Terra Incognita 141 Replies latest members politics

sabastious

This argument is pretty facinating to me. It is passion vs reason of which is always a stalemate because both are needed, yet are rendered useless when in conflict with each other.
-Sab
darthfader

Sab, great thought! you cant have one without the other
DaCheech

my mom (60 years ago) had to work 2 years for free as a apprentice.
brotherunsure

Even back in the Hebrew scriptures before Christ harvasters were supposed to leave a little for the poor.
Farkel

terra incognita,
This is your post to me:
__________________________________________________________________
: You have made a preposterous claim and presented preposterous evidence.
You blathered:
:Now Tea Party dominated Republicans want to enslave children!
Idiot. Your arguments are as foolish as your screaming.
:Yet many of their ilk say that violent insurrection is needed against those who oppose them! The bill below, presented by Republicans in Maine, aims to weaken child labor laws. Of note are the following provisions meant to "enhance" lives of minors:
"Ilk" is an ad hominem, you know when it is used in the context you are using it.
Give up?
___________________________________________________________
Of course I won't give up. I challenge you to post my entire argument and then debate it item-by-item. Instead you are tossing out a few bits and you don't even have the courage to debate THEM.
Step up to the plate, or look the fool. I will take you on. Easily. And I will destroy your lies and your childish and naive notions about Socialism which is one of my favorite subjects to trash. It makes itself so easy to trash and I'm lazy. I love to let the cause trash itself, and I just get to do the clean up work.
Take my dare. I'm your huckleberry.
Farkel

Terra Incognita

Darth Fader:

"TI, based on your arguments in support of this thread, it looks like you want to completely eliminate any possible exploitation of child labor. While this is a noble cause, it's impracticle in the real world. Not only would you have to eliminate any child labor, but enforcement would be nearly impossible."

Darth, I was not referring to the whole world but to the eventual fate of this country based on the two bills that I posted; particularly Missouri's bill. Furthermore the argument of "If you can't be ABSOLUTELY PERFECT in your accomplishments then it's not worth doing", sounds more like a rationalization. The goal in any personal or human endeavor is to do the best possible.

Drewcoal: "As you are apparently not aware, Federal law supercedes any state laws."

Instead of phrasing that statement in the form of a question such as: "Are you aware that Federal law supersedes State laws? There is the arrogant judgmental retort that assumes that I'm not aware of some particular point.

AS FOR YOUR AWARENESS OF WHAT I POSTED, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE. Since you don't bother to either read or watch the YouTube videos that I post, I'm going to repost a video. The video that makes it obvious what your Republican politicians think of Federal Laws as to their legitimacy concerning child labor laws.

It is now YOU, Drewcoal could apply your own words to yourself:

"Please get a clue before boring the rest of us with your ignorant, one-sided, and worthless posts."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrkZKgol0Wc&feature=player_embedded

And below the video I wrote: "His argument is basically that no matter how reprehensible child labor is, the Federal Government has no right to regulate it."

As for the rest of you who wrote about your experiences with working as children; it is obvious that you are totally dense as to the specific points I made. I was certainly NOT talking about children working for their relatives or in the relative safety of their neighborhoods. When I was ten I used to go with my mother, a janitor, and vacuum the carpets.

YOU KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT! AND YOUR PERSISTENT REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE POINTS I MADE ABOUT CHILD ENDANGERMENT IS WHAT I WAS EMPHASIZING.

All your points about your hard work bears no relevance to the issues that I brought up. Since there seems to be an epidemic of selective amnesia spreading on this thread let me repost Missouri State Senator Jane Cunninghams bill and then take you guys by the hand and emphasize the points I was making (and that you are avoiding):

SB 222 – This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed.It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished . It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.

First point of emphasis. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SHOVELING SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK OR WORKING FOR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS.
It is obvious that we're talking about the employment of children ANYWHERE specifically environments where there are a large number of adult workers.
No allowance for State authorities to inspect employers who employ children. WHY? So that those employers that are so disposed can get away with anything? This alone gives reason to believe Senator Cunningham has absolutely no concern for the safety of those children.
We cannot even assume that a child's presence is evidence of employment.
CHILDREN UNDER 16 ALLOWED TO WORK IN ANY CAPACITY IN MOTELS WHERE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IS COMMON! So a 14 year old girl can work "in any capacity" such as a chambermaid. This means that she has to enter bedrooms.
Prohibitions on employment for children under 14. No limits as to hours or time of day.

Now, for the ethically and intellectually challenged,

here are the obvious consequences of this Senator's moral depravity:

Motel boss to 14 year old girl: Graveyard shift honey? Yes you sweety; you young luscious chambermaid. By the way are you virgin?
Human resources Manager to female, 12 year old, Home Depot employee (In a store with 100 male employees and high turnover rates): Yes honey, I remember your telling me last month that you were being sexually harassed. You got to understand though, that this place is cutting back on work. I just lost my assistant due to budget cuts (even though the economy has been recovering) and because of that loss I cannot get half my work done. You also got to understand that there are half a dozen like you who have complained about being sexually harassed, fondled and one claims she was raped-oh never mind-she committed suicide. So please be patient; I already told you to have your parents pursue this legally although I realize that you want us to take care of it ourselves. Now, now; please don't cry honey. I know you want us to take care of it because you're afraid of losing your job. Yes honey; you already told me about your dying Grandma who can no longer afford her medicine because of those budget cuts. But there's nothing I can . . .
Division of Labor supervisor to distraught mother: Yes mam; I know that working conditions there are deplorable, but according to the law that was passed 5 years ago there is absolutely nothing I can do because that law specifically prohibits me from inspecting employers who employ children. <?>... Yes mam; you had no idea that the Senator you voted for would create such a law but then, with all due respect mam; people never know what they're getting themselves into until they get into it. You thought that your son's work was going to be temporary and that you could counsel him against the dangers he was facing but . . .
Doctor to crying father: I'm sorry to inform you sir that your son's cancer is terminal. There's been a massive increase in cancer rates among workers in the industry your son has been in since the age of 13. <?>... Well sir; I'm not a lawyer but I can tell you right away that I've served as an expert witness in similar cases. Those lawsuits fail most of the time because of the new laws that were passed . . .

What revolts me about the amorality of those who justify such laws is that they give their own children as an example even though the circumstances in which those children (or young adults) as if they had any relevance whatsoever to this issue. Let's take these absurd rebuttals for example:

I worked about 60 hours a week and made TEN BUCKS. Was I forced? No, I LOVED earning my own money. It made my back strong and gave me a lovely tan. I also worked with my grandfather making signs and creating department store displays.

Isn't it nice that this poster has fond memories of working with a Grandfather that wasn't going to sexually abuse him or put him in any position where he could be maimed or possibly killed? As I said previously, I was ten when I worked with my mother at night vacuuming the carpets in a Bank building.

Now what the hell does that have to do with the specific examples that I just gave. Those situations are based on specific provisions of that bill and common sense.

My own kids (nobody asked them to) when they were in their early teens would go door to door at the apartment complexes and take people's trash out for a dollar. Most tenants hated to do it themselves. My daughter earned money babysitting.

Did they have to go inside any of those apartments in order to pick up the trash? If they did, that would have been highly irresponsible of the parent. In one of the apartments where I lived; the Manager's husband; an unemployed Pentecostal minister; had sex with a 13 year old tenant.

When each of my kids turned 18 they moved themselves out and got their own apartment and job. My youngest daughter (of the first 3) put herself through college working all the while.

Oh my! This is so relevant to the topic. HELLO! Working yourself through college has nothing to do with a 14 year old working as a chambermaid in a motel.

So now, the poster who made the above post could answer the following questions:

Would you allow your 14 year old daughter to work as a chambermaid in a motel?
Or at Home Depot?
Where you forced to by poverty to have your children work under the circumstances that those pictures that I posted indicated?
Do you think that those pictures showed children that were happy? Or had their characters built up in a positive way?
Did you even look at those pictures and comprehend their meaning?
Are you; who said that you had no stake in the plight of [fill in the blank], who believes that altruism is evil, and despises "weak" people; . . . why the hell am I bothering?

In conclusion; the meaning of my images are clear to all but the morally torpid.

The images that were posted in response to mine are also clear to all but the morally torpid. The equation of those who have altruistic thoughts towards the long dead children depicted in my images are equated with Nazis. I don't think the Nazis did that to their children. Ayn Randians and other assorted Republicans would.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's been a long time since I've cleaned my Mini 14.

Terra Incognita

Farkel; concerning your post #11935, I wasn't even addressing you at all. If you bother to read that post carefully, and take note of its phrasing, you would realize that I was addressing myself to a general audience both in the introduction and the conclusion. Here is the critical segment of my post that you left out (and you quoted everything else):
"Farkel, with a most appropriate avatar, presents a typical example of self-contradiction. Let's see if we can find it. I'll give some hints."
And the closing statement, "Give up?", was obviously directed to the "we", obviously the general audience.
Furthermore, I grow bored of Glenn Beckian ditto heads who bandy the word Socialist(ism) as if they even know what it means. Socialist to those intellectual retards means anyone but themselves. Of course, anyone who opposes child labor (the topic of this thread) is a . . . choke . . . a . . . gasp . . . a . . .

SOCIALIST!!!

. SOCIALIST!!!

SOCIALIST!!

SOCIALIST!!!
Quentin

"As for the rest of you who wrote about your experiences with working as children; it is obvious that you are totally dense as to the specific points I made. I was certainly NOT talking about childrenworking for their relatives or in the relative safety of their neighborhoods. When I was ten I used to go with my mother, a janitor, and vacuum the carpets."....( Terra ).....That is a reveling statement as to your mind set. I sincerly hope you seek the proper therapy needed to deal with the deep pain in which you live.
Now, let me expand on your above comment and tie it to the one below. When I was growing up a constant topic was the "Great Depresion". Many of us grew up with that topic and lived in families who experenced the HARD TIMES of that era, whose grand-parents and parents did all they could to encourage, invoke, and instill a work ethic in their children. What our families encouraged us to do in no way makes us DENSE to your one sided presentation. One sided because you have not stated anywhere the opposing view of these two bills, nor have you provided any information as to their status, Are they being debated? Are they in commitee? Are they now in fact established law?
Three questions;... 1. Are you asserting that relative's do not, or ever rape and abuse childern?... 2. Are you asserting that the neighborhood a child lives in never has any rappist, or abusers of childern?...3. That the only place rape and abuse would occur is in a work place enviroment? I ask these questions because of the bloody shirt waving of your fictious commentary below.
•Motel boss to 14 year old girl: Graveyard shift honey? Yes you sweety; you young luscious chambermaid. By the way are you virgin?
•Human resources Manager to female, 12 year old, Home Depot employee (In a store with 100 male employees and high turnover rates): Yes honey, I remember your telling me last month that you were being sexually harassed. You got to understand though, that this place is cutting back on work. I just lost my assistant due to budget cuts (even though the economy has been recovering) and because of that loss I cannot get half my work done. You also got to understand that there are half a dozen like you who have complained about being sexually harassed, fondled and one claims she was raped-oh never mind-she committed suicide. So please be patient; I already told you to have your parents pursue this legally although I realize that you want us to take care of it ourselves. Now, now; please don't cry honey. I know you want us to take care of it because you're afraid of losing your job. Yes honey; you already told me about your dying Grandma who can no longer afford her medicine because of those budget cuts. But there's nothing I can . . .
•Division of Labor supervisor to distraught mother: Yes mam; I know that working conditions there are deplorable, but according to the law that was passed 5 years ago there is absolutely nothing I can do because that law specifically prohibits me from inspecting employers who employ children. <?>... Yes mam; you had no idea that the Senator you voted for would create such a law but then, with all due respect mam; people never know what they're getting themselves into until they get into it. You thought that your son's work was going to be temporary and that you could counsel him against the dangers he was facing but . . .
•Doctor to crying father: I'm sorry to inform you sir that your son's cancer is terminal. There's been a massive increase in cancer rates among workers in the industry your son has been in since the age of 13. <?>... Well sir; I'm not a lawyer but I can tell you right away that I've served as an expert witness in similar cases. Those lawsuits fail most of the time because of the new laws that were passed . . .
It has become obvious to me continuing to debate this one sided topic is a waste of time. Your presentation of this topic is tilted toward your bias of the issue. I hope somehow, someway your pain can be assuaged, after which it can be delt with. I wish you well...
NeckBeard

Good effort Quentin...but you are throwing it all out the window with this nutjob. He's a troll.
Quentin

Agreed, thus my comment........It has become obvious to me continuing to debate this one sided topic is a waste of time.

Now the Tea Party dominated Republicans want to enslave children! Yet they have the audacity to say that violent insurrection is needed against those who oppose them!!!

Share this