Hillary wants to unemploy hard working Americans

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Too funny that folks are justifying a politician proclaiming her goal is to but a segment of society out of work.

Hillary supporters are rubes.

She wants to create jobs in renewable energy.

To me it makes more sense to move forward and put our money on the future.  It is not a loss of jobs.  It is switching jobs to a newer better industry.

By moving toward renewable energy we save Oklahoma from hundreds of severe earthquakes; eliminate billions of dollars spent fighting wars in the middle east and having to go to bed with the Saudies; eliminate a major source of pollution; and eliminate a major source of greenhouse gasses.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2016, 12:04 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Better not close Planned Parenthood....jobs will be lost

close abortion clinics?  jobs lost

cut the size of the government?  jobs lost

outsource jobs to China/Mexico so we can all have more cheap crap?  jobs lost

use less oil?  jobs lost

use less coal?  jobs lost

stop invading every country?  jobs lost

cut welfare benefits?  jobs at the welfare office lost

legalize weed?  jobs lost arresting, judging, guarding, and prosecuting weed smokers

keep prostitution illegal?  jobs lost


It's all about jobs when it comes to certain things.  We are supposed to care about the jobs of the people who do the coal mining and fracking...that's certainly not some sort of ruse for the plutocrats who profit off this stuff to appeal to the peasant masses, is it?   

Actually fracking has more to do with Natural Gas (you know "A cleaner option"), So if the intention of this post was to make a point; it was lost.  

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 11:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They are picking one industry over another because they have decided that is what's best for us.

They are being forced to by the rest of the world.  If we don't invest heavily in renewable energy we will be left behind.

If you factor in the costs of earthquakes in Oklahoma and other western states, the wars in the middle east, the pollution, and the greenhouse gasses it is pretty clear that fossil fuels are not really that cheap anymore.

It is like when people were not willing to pay extra for safety glass or seatbelts in automobiles, but the government realizes it was cheaper for our country as a whole to have these things.  The government made the choice for us and it was the right choice.  We have saved billions thanks to safety glass and seatbelts in cars, yet if we left it to the individuals it would probably have never happened.  That is what the government is supposed to do.  If not individuals will run the country in the ground thinking they are saving money when in fact it is costing us more money.

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually fracking has more to do with Natural Gas (you know "A cleaner option"), So if the intention of this post was to make a point; it was lost.  

Nope.  Hillary was talking about renewable energy programs to replace all fossil fuels.  She is not advocating moving the natural gas at all.  She is anti-fracking.

You know how I know this?  I looked up what she actually said instead of just relying on a one line quote from a biased source.  .  .  .  Something you will never understand.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2016, 01:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Nope.  Hillary was talking about renewable energy programs to replace all fossil fuels.  She is not advocating moving the natural gas at all.  She is anti-fracking.

You know how I know this?  I looked up what she actually said instead of just relying on a one line quote from a biased source.  .  .  .  Something you will never understand.

Cool story, but I was actually responding to what Natey said. Do you need me to be man enough to admit you made a mistake again? 

[*Nately120*]

(03-21-2016, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually fracking has more to do with Natural Gas (you know "A cleaner option"), So if the intention of this post was to make a point; it was lost.  

I don't care about the environment or jobs...I'm just here to point out the hypocrisy of acting like the employment status of any of the schlubs who mine, manufacture, or extract whatever fuel the powers that be decide to push really matters.  

Would you be ok with the shift from coal if every coal miner was given a job manufacturing and installing solar panels?  If so, then for you I guess it truly IS about the jobs and not furthering some sort of pro-this or pro-that agenda.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2016, 01:08 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't care about the environment or jobs...

At least you admit it.



BTW Fred, I'm not saying Hillary said this; I'm just responding to Nately. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-20-2016, 10:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So just to summarize what I was saying, Ford was successful because he found a way to mass produce cars for a price people coukd afford.  Not because the government taxes and regulated the horse business into bankruptcy.

I also believe that one day we will replace fossil fuels, but you have to allow it to happen organically.  Just like cars and home computers and what have you.

I dont think im allowed to ride a horse down 75. Isnt that regulation? Any chance government funded roads helped cars take over our country and the rest of the world? And how powerful do you think the carriage lobbyist were?

People and businesses have more money and power than ever if we really are going to wait for it to happen "organically" we would be waiting until OPEC and other oil giants ran out of oil and money to dominate the market.

Some of the greatest inventions known to man come from our countries government.

I didnt hear many conservatives complaining when mountain top removal was destroying water supplies and greatly reducing the number of workers required to extract similar amounts of coal as previous methods that required more workers.

Coal is a dirty source of energy. If shit hits the fan and we need it its there. Fighting for coal just shows a basic misunderstanding of science.

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 01:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Cool story, but I was actually responding to what Natey said. Do you need me to be man enough to admit you made a mistake again? 

I am still confused.

You don't care about people in the natural gas industry losing their jobs?  Just coal miners?

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2016, 01:24 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am still confused.

You don't care about people in the natural gas industry losing their jobs?  Just coal miners?

Of course I care about people in the Natural Gas Industry losing their jobs. Who do you think I am; Hillary?


Is it time yet for me to be man enough to admit you made a mistake? 

[JustWinBaby]

It's a fine line to pander to the environmentalists while not killing jobs...

[*Nately120*]

(03-21-2016, 02:20 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's a fine line to pander to the environmentalists while not killing jobs...

I recall outsourcing being a big talking point around 2004 or so and it seemed like the right-wing's response to that sort of job loss was:

1.  Americans didn't want to do those jobs, anyways
2.  Americans are so entitled that they cost too much to pay to do those jobs
3.  Unions wrecked it
4.  If you lost your job you should just get educated enough to get a job that won't be governmentally or technologically eliminated

SO if the coal industry loses jobs I guess we can take a play from the right-wing playbook and say that no American really WANTED to mine coal, the insurance and safety measures were too expensive to make the industry profitable, the coal miners union was too powerful and corrupt (I heard most union coal miners just slept on the job and didn't do anything, anyways), and the loss of coal mining jobs just opens the door for current and future miners to get an education and get better jobs that help the USA even more.

See?  Job loss isn't so bad.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-21-2016, 02:28 AM)Nately120 Wrote: See?  Job loss isn't so bad.

Yeah, I'm not sure if you're trying to refute or affirm my point.

[McC]

Hillary's a joke. Her followers are of limited intelligence. She contradicts herself so much, she can't even keep track. Here entire trillion dollar "Clinton Plan", her Socialist manifesto, the one where the government gives everybody everything, is funded by "tax the ultra rich," this liberal battle cry they've been yelling for as long as anyone can remember. Tax the rich, tax the rich, redistribute the wealth, the backbone of Socialism.

Except, it never really happens because the rich are the ones with their hands up her giant ass, paying for her multi-billion dollar campaign of crap and empty lies.

"What city am I in? What group is this? What set of lies am I spewing today?"

Go on, Sheep. Pimp this mess. She is the problem personified. She is not the solution, no matter how many times she claims she is. Change? Give me a break. The only change she represents is where she supposedly stands from week to week. Wouldn't surprise me at all if there's coal money in her giant wad of cash.

And anyone alarmed or upset by what she said, take heart. She'll flip flop on it eventually. At some point in the campaign, like when she travels to WVa or KY, she'll sing a different tune. That is the nature of the best when one promises everything to everyone.

Just ask the college students who voted for Obama after he promised to pay off all their student loans.

[GMDino]

(03-21-2016, 02:28 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I recall outsourcing being a big talking point around 2004 or so and it seemed like the right-wing's response to that sort of job loss was:

1.  Americans didn't want to do those jobs, anyways
2.  Americans are so entitled that they cost too much to pay to do those jobs
3.  Unions wrecked it
4.  If you lost your job you should just get educated enough to get a job that won't be governmentally or technologically eliminated

SO if the coal industry loses jobs I guess we can take a play from the right-wing playbook and say that no American really WANTED to mine coal, the insurance and safety measures were too expensive to make the industry profitable, the coal miners union was too powerful and corrupt (I heard most union coal miners just slept on the job and didn't do anything, anyways), and the loss of coal mining jobs just opens the door for current and future miners to get an education and get better jobs that help the USA even more.

See?  Job loss isn't so bad.

Bingo.  If the owner makes a cost cutting move or sends his business out of the country or to a "tax friendly" state that is seen as good old American exceptionalism.  Workers can move.  They should have been better educated to begin with.  Too bad for them.

But if they can blame that big old bad government for requiring they not poison the air and water as the REASON they cut costs, send his business out of the country or to a "tax friendly" state then some people get in a huge uproar about "killing jobs".

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 01:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I care about people in the Natural Gas Industry losing their jobs. Who do you think I am; Hillary?

No.  I think you are the guy who claimed natural gas had nothing to do with the point of this thread.

(03-21-2016, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually fracking has more to do with Natural Gas (you know "A cleaner option"), So if the intention of this post was to make a point; it was lost.  

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-20-2016, 03:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I can sit here and complain that our demographic and lifestyle was phased out, but I want my cheap electronics and cars all the same, so what's the point?  

Ya know....are they really any cheaper?  I remember when all of that started moving, and Ross Perot told of how this was all a ploy to drive wages down.  When you look back on it, prices didn't drop like they said it would.  I don't recall ANY drop in prices.  Prices have continued to climb.  I also remember reading that if Walmart paid like 11 bucks an hour that your box of macaroni would cost mere pennies more, not this catastrophic price hike they say would surely doom us all.

  What *really* happens is....they get their labor for pennies on the dollar, and the the cost to ship it back is passed on to the consumer.  They make money hand over fist, put the primary consumer in a precarious situation (which doesn't seem like smart business to me), use our infrastructure and municipalities, but don't want to pay taxes on the upkeep of them, and a profit at all cost mentality.  As usual, the deck is stacked.  BOTH parties are involved in the scam.....

[GMDino]

Just replace the people...simple.

Then the robots can buy the products...right?


http://www.techtimes.com/articles/142551/20160320/carls-jr-ceo-thinking-about-putting-up-restaurant-where-all-workers-are-robots-why.htm

Quote:Carl's Jr. CEO Thinking About Putting Up Restaurant Where All Workers Are Robots: Why?

Carl's Jr. and Hardee’s CEO Andy Puzder was inspired by Eatsa, a fully-automated restaurant that hires very few people as kitchen staff. Why is he interested in such a concept?
(Photo : Chris Potter | Flickr)

Inspired by fully-automated restaurant Eatsa, Carl's Jr. and Hardee's CEO Andy Puzder said that he is thinking about putting up a restaurant where all workers are robots instead of humans.

Eatsa has very few employees working as kitchen staff as all front-of-house processes are computerized, which allows customers to order and enjoy their meals without seeing a single person the whole time. Because there are only a few employees on the payroll, the restaurant is able to make investments in healthier food items.

In an interview with Business Insider, Puzder said that he would like to try out something similar, such as an all-natural product restaurant that will allow customers to order from a kiosk and pay through their credit card or debit card. Customers will then be able to receive their food without seeing a single person.

An employee-free restaurant is not in the cards yet though, as Hardee's is currently focused on its expansion in the northeast. However, the reason behind Puzder's interest in the concept is well known.

"With government driving up the cost of labor, it's driving down the number of jobs," Puzder said, referring to the rising minimum wages across the United States. The CEO added that automation will become more prevalent due to this, with more locations including airports, grocery stores and restaurants to resort to automation.

Puzder has previously written articles regarding his views on increasing minimum wage, with the CEO criticizing the push for higher limits.

According to him, the higher minimum wage limits will not be relevant if companies will be forced to hire fewer workers due to such changes, which would lead to higher unemployment rates.

"If you're making labor more expensive, and automation less expensive — this is not rocket science," Puzder said.

Moving towards automation will not be easy, Puzder concedes, especially in the more complicated kitchen processes. However, for tasks such as taking orders, robots could do even better jobs than humans.
Hilton Hotels is another company that has turned to automation for its workforce, as it has launched the robot concierge known as Connie.

The 2.5-foot tall robot is powered by IBM Watson and WayBlazer intelligence, which allows it to answer routine questions usually asked by guests at the front desk of hotels.

[Brownshoe]

(03-20-2016, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Meanwhile here in the US the fossil fuel industry has finally admitted that fracking is the cause of the 900% increase in earthquakes in Oklahoma over the last few years.  Then there is the increase in disease caused by air pollution and the effects on our environment.  If we continue to tie our future to fossil fuels we are doomed.

citation please

[CageTheBengal]

All I've taken away from this thread is that the same people who have trouble grasping human evolution have trouble grasping technological evolution as well.


Science is a great subject folks!