Put up a fight dammit

I get flustered and come off brash. In crude terms, I can be an asshole. But it comes from a good place, out of compassion, I believe.

I so often talk to people who have set their minds to an idea, and they spend all their energies trying to reinforce those ideas, even when logic and all sense defies it. I try, even if I fail, to present them with reasons why they may be wrong. And I eagerly await their counterpoint because I don't believe that I'm right just because I believe something. I humor myself with a paraphrase Socrates (a la Plato) that I know more than most because I know that I know nothing. That's why I spend so much of my personal time looking into facts and figures; so when I see misinformation or plain ignorance, I have the opportunity to bring these people toward their own knowledge.

And I possibly get more flustered with someone of higher intelligence and education, as I hold them to a higher standard than I do most. I know they have the ability and capability to reach their own conclusions based on logic, reasoning, research, and facts. I recognize that may be unfair, but as someone once said, it may be "unfair, but not unjust." (Sidney Morgenbesser said this about the police hitting him while protesting the Vietnam war. It was unfair that he was hit, but not unjust as they hit everyone.)

More to the point, when I see someone of their obvious ability make such statements (as "Trump is clearly racist") but this conclusion appears based on bad data (in my opinion, of course), I feel obligated to challenge that belief. And too often, the response is self-reinforcing or attempts to twist logic to reinforce the original idea. You see, if I believed they lacked the ability to provide point-counterpoint, I wouldn't confront their ideas with as much vehemence.

For instance, when I pointed out the logical fallacy of "Trump's a racist", they do not immediately provide any evidence of their own. They often attack the logical fallacy. While I give them points for style, they get no credit for addressing the issue. When they do provide evidence, they come from a place of "My assumption is Trump's a racist. From that we can prove..." That is bad form and horrible logic.

So, if they say, "supporting Trump is to support racism," they have already implied that Trump himself is racist and will promulgate racist ideology. I then am forced to go through the assumed litany of charges against Trump which I assume are their arguments (since they did not provide their own). The charge of Trump's racism often stems from his position on illegal immigration. So, I address that his position is little different than those of Bill Clinton 20 years ago. Also, Trump's position on Middle Eastern refugees is often a source of accusation; so I addressed that. And so on. If I can show that Trumps political positions are not racist nor motivated by racism, then the support of those who are racist will have no sway over his policies.

If they do not present their own argument, I have to assume their arguments for them. That's not the way I like to have discussions. But if they only argue semantics and not facts, I have little other choice.

And I will not apologize for my brash tone or my offensive manner. I want them to get upset. I want them to convince me. I want them to bring their best reason and logic. But most of all, I want facts. And if they cannot provide those, I will continue to challenge their assertions.

Brutal takedown of CEO wage myth - Re-Blog

THE MISLEADING CLAIM: These 8 CEOs get paid so much that they clearly can afford to raise their worker's wages to $15 per hour.

THE REALITY: As we'll demonstrate below, the math proves this claim is questionable, at best.

JC PENNY:
• 114,000 employees [1]
• CEO pay: $4,629 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.04 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.

CHIPOTLE:
• 53,090 employees [2]
• CEO pay: $13,489 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.25 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.

Note, part of why Chipotle's CEO (Steve Ells) is so highly compensated is because he holds TWO positions, rather than just one, also serving as Chipotle’s chairman. [3]

Another interesting point? Chipotle ALREADY pays its workers more than comparable fast food outlets, such as Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King. [4]

DUNKIN DONUTS:
• 260,000 employees [5]
• CEO pay: $4,889 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.01 (technically 0.018) per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.

DOMINOS:
• 11,000 employees [6]
• CEO pay: $3,571 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.32 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.

WENDY'S:
• 31,200 employees [7]
• CEO pay: $3,465 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.11 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.

WAL-MART:
• 2,200,000 employees [8]
• CEO pay: $2,704 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.00 (technically 0.001) per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.

STAR-BUCKS:
• 191,000 employees [9]
• CEO pay: $10,285 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.05 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.

MACY'S:
• 166,900 employees [10]
• CEO pay: $7,904 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.04 (technically 0.047) per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.

CONCLUSION:
Considering that this meme took annual CEO pay and simply divided it up into 40 hour work weeks despite the fact that CEOs of top firms routinely work over 40 hours a week [11], it already was guilty of significantly over-inflating CEO's hourly wages. But even if one takes the meme's inaccurate estimates at face value, it's conclusion proves to be entirely false, never the less. You could literally eradicate 100% of CEO pay from each of these companies and never even come close to a 50 cent per hour raise for workers, never mind nearly doubling minimum wages to $15 per hour. This claim is demonstrably false.
----------------------
ADDENDUM:
Before one protests that our counter-argument is off because we counted ALL employees rather than focusing only on those paid under $15, understand that this point - while valid - raises only a very small discrepancy.

It wouldn't matter if one adjusted the math to apply it to half or even one-third the workforce, because one would still struggle to add a dollar to worker's pay.  For instance, take Wal-Mart for example. Their pay increase would each be a (rounded down) 0 cents per hour raise if applied to all workers, but if we adjusted the figures to distribute the CEO's pay amongst workers presently earning less than $15, as to bring it up to the hypothetical $15 minimum, it still wouldn't be more than a few cent raise.  Therefore, even though our rebuttal is a rounded off estimate, it's one that is so significantly far away from the original misleading claim that it becomes obvious Occupy Democrats was very wrong.
---------------------
Sources:
[1]
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/JCP--Number_of_Employees

[2]
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/CMG--Number-of-Employees

[3]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-15/chipotle-investors-slam-executive-compensation-at-annual-meeting

[4]
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-fast-food-jobs-pay-2013-7#!I5stQ

[5]
http://www.bostonjobsource.com/dunkin.html

[6]
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/DPZ--Number-of-Employees

[7]
https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/WEN--Number-of-Employees

[8]
http://news.walmart.com/walmart-facts/

[9]
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/SBUX--Number-of-Employees

[10]
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/M--Number-of-Employees

[11]
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/mobile/top-executives.htm

---

source:

https://www.facebook.com/WeAreCapitalists/posts/437519359752945:0

why #NeverHillary?

REMEMBER WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT?
(January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001—two terms)

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over an attempt to reform health care.

Her proposed plan was so bad that many Democrats came up with competing plans of their own in protest, and in spite of threats and intimidation, on September 26, 1994, the “Hillarycare” bill was declared dead.

This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood—both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next, she chose Janet Reno, which husband Bill described as "my worst mistake."

(Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.)

Husband Bill also allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission—Lani Guanier was her selection.

After considerable backlash from prominent Democratic senators concerning Ms. Guanier's radical views, Bill Clinton withdrew her name from nomination, stating that she did not represents the civil rights views that he had championed during his campaign.

However, apparently a slow learner, husband Bill continued to allow Hillary to make more recommendations.

She chose former law partners, Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

(Is anyone wondering yet what her Supreme Court Justice appointments would be like?)

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate," the first major ethics controversy during Bill’s presidency.

Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend, Harry Thompson—but the White House Travel Office refused to comply.

She trumped up allegations of financial mismanagement and reported seven long-time White House employees to the FBI. This ruined their reputations, got them fired, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.

Eventually, most of the employees were reinstated and Clinton associates were forced out of the travel office. Only one White House employee, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime—the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds; a jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House Security.

When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the President denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense.

Let’s look at some of her more notable decisions in this regard . . .

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation, they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury, followed by his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath. (Sound familiar?)

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had "mistakenly thought was hers."

So you see, the email scandal and all of her malfeasance regarding the handling of Top Secret information, not to mention the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation, are nothing new.

Hillary’s entire political career has been nothing but a web of lies, corruption and destruction in her quest for power.

Is anyone else ready to say, “Enough is enough!”?

But unfortunately, I’m sure her loyal fans will say, "What difference does it make?"

(links added to original)
source: various versions online