Conquer Club

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) has a message for her party: expand Medicaid — or else.

The combative GOP governor is sticking by a threat she made to veto all legislation until lawmakers resolve the 2014 state budget and pass Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. On Thursday, Brewer proved that wasn’t just talk, vetoing five bills sent to her desk in quick succession.

Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/

Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/

I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.When I left; my new employer was shocked to learn how little I was making considering my responsibility's.Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much. I will add a little more,Wal-Mart is oposed to paying workers overtime to the point of firing them if they have a problem with going over on hours,and Wal-mart also does not want its workers having second jobs the reason given is the second job competes with Wal-Mart.

ooge wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/

I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.

Interesting. This goes against everything I've seen at the local Wal-Marts (Lincoln NE, Reno, NV and Biloxi MS) over the last seven years or so.

ooge wrote:Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.

I've heard horror stories about that, though never at the stores that were local to me. Surprised nobody has died under such conditions.

ooge wrote:Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much.

I must admit, Wal-Mart boycotter that I am, I have heard there have been improvements. Sadly, most of those improvements have come about only thanks to employee lawsuits.

Woodruff wrote:

ooge wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/

I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.

Interesting. This goes against everything I've seen at the local Wal-Marts (Lincoln NE, Reno, NV and Biloxi MS) over the last seven years or so.

ooge wrote:Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.

I've heard horror stories about that, though never at the stores that were local to me. Surprised nobody has died under such conditions.

ooge wrote:Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much.

I must admit, Wal-Mart boycotter that I am, I have heard there have been improvements. Sadly, most of those improvements have come about only thanks to employee lawsuits.

Believe me being locked in the store and not being able to leave is something you do not forget.When I worked there I shopped there,when I stopped working there I stopped shopping there,Wal-mart best customers are their employees.

ooge wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ooge wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/

I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.

Interesting. This goes against everything I've seen at the local Wal-Marts (Lincoln NE, Reno, NV and Biloxi MS) over the last seven years or so.

ooge wrote:Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.

I've heard horror stories about that, though never at the stores that were local to me. Surprised nobody has died under such conditions.

ooge wrote:Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much.

I must admit, Wal-Mart boycotter that I am, I have heard there have been improvements. Sadly, most of those improvements have come about only thanks to employee lawsuits.

Believe me being locked in the store and not being able to leave is something you do not forget.When I worked there I shopped there,when I stopped working there I stopped shopping there,Wal-mart best customers are their employees.

I would imagine the 10% employee discount has a lot to do with that.

Woodruff wrote:

ooge wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ooge wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/

I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.

Interesting. This goes against everything I've seen at the local Wal-Marts (Lincoln NE, Reno, NV and Biloxi MS) over the last seven years or so.

ooge wrote:Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.

I've heard horror stories about that, though never at the stores that were local to me. Surprised nobody has died under such conditions.

ooge wrote:Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much.

I must admit, Wal-Mart boycotter that I am, I have heard there have been improvements. Sadly, most of those improvements have come about only thanks to employee lawsuits.

Believe me being locked in the store and not being able to leave is something you do not forget.When I worked there I shopped there,when I stopped working there I stopped shopping there,Wal-mart best customers are their employees.

I would imagine the 10% employee discount has a lot to do with that.

its still 10%? they did not increase it to 15%?...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/03/3 ... drums.html

Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.

On the other side of the argument are such supposed ideological opposites as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Bob Casey (D-Penn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz), all of whom want the United States to sweep into Syria with guns blazing. McCain, who has never encountered a foreign-policy problem that couldn’t, in his opinion, be solved by dropping a bomb on it, even labeled Paul a “wacko bird” for his dangerous unbelligerance.

Oh and ooge, this is especially for you:

The administration originally offered rhetorical sympathy, but not much more, to the rebels trying to oust Bashar Assad. Then it decided to permit other countries to ship U.S. arms to the (supposedly) nonradical factions of the rebels. Now we’re giving guns directly to those rebels.

thegreekdog wrote:

Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.

That's a great quote.

thegreekdog wrote:

The administration originally offered rhetorical sympathy, but not much more, to the rebels trying to oust Bashar Assad. Then it decided to permit other countries to ship U.S. arms to the (supposedly) nonradical factions of the rebels. Now we’re giving guns directly to those rebels.

The next Taliban, folks.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.

That's a great quote.

thegreekdog wrote:

The administration originally offered rhetorical sympathy, but not much more, to the rebels trying to oust Bashar Assad. Then it decided to permit other countries to ship U.S. arms to the (supposedly) nonradical factions of the rebels. Now we’re giving guns directly to those rebels.

The next Taliban, folks.

I'm sure they'll greatly appreciate NATO's efforts in bringing them to power. Years later, we'll look back at this moment and say, "thank god we've spread democracy, and at the very least, we've helped save those poor people from their evil government."

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.

That's a great quote.

thegreekdog wrote:

The administration originally offered rhetorical sympathy, but not much more, to the rebels trying to oust Bashar Assad. Then it decided to permit other countries to ship U.S. arms to the (supposedly) nonradical factions of the rebels. Now we’re giving guns directly to those rebels.

The next Taliban, folks.

I'm sure they'll greatly appreciate NATO's efforts in bringing them to power. Years later, we'll look back at this moment and say, "thank god we've spread democracy, and at the very least, we've helped save those poor people from their evil government."

You mean like Libya where they hoped for pro-western leaders and what they got was a country in civil war and Al Quiada propegating anti-western views? And where the guns ended up in Mali fighting the french? I agree that Assad is a bad person, however NATO only wants to attack Syria to screw Russia and Iran.

Nonsense! Libya is a young, pro-democratic country making inroads toward prosperity with the help of the IMF, World Bank, and US Aid. Together, as a Global Force for Good, we can make a difference, but without any help, Libya would remain ruled by an evil dictator whose country was running at a modest 14k per-capita GDP.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Nonsense! Libya is a young, pro-democratic country making inroads toward prosperity with the help of the IMF, World Bank, and US Aid. Together, as a Global Force for Good, we can make a difference, but without any help, Libya would remain ruled by an evil dictator whose country was running at a modest 14k per-capita GDP.

I'm not trying to protect Gadaffi, but the current Libya isn't much better. Militia's from local gang leaders run free on the streets fighting and committing acts of terrorism. There is an ever increasing threat from the Mahgreb Al Quiada. Any economic shock or any increase in global food prices could tip it to the muslim fundamentalist side completely. The country is entirely unstable.

Oh, I'll drop the tongue-in-cheek. In those last posts, I was trying my hand at rhetoric, which I don't find convincing.

Usually, I'm opposed to any military and government-funded/managed intervention/aid into any foreign country.

In regard to Libya, I'd fully support a partition of the country into the more accurate tribal/regional zones which have been governing that country with the recently deposed Gaddafi. Let each group govern themselves because at least the cost of governing and the chance of error would be less per region--as compared to an unwanted national government which is seeking to expand its power.

Many internal conflicts are primary caused due to a disproportionate treatment of groups from a national government (e.g. Kurds v. Turkey, Kurds v. Iraq-Baghdad, etc.). Let them govern themselves and their Call for Arms would lose much meaning since they'd be victorious, thus those internal conflicts would have much more reasonable pressure to end.

Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:

I mean it's not like the hire Veterans or anything ... wait they do ...Walmart starts new effort to hire military veterans

The retailer says it will offer a job to any honorably discharged veteran within a year of active duty. Walmart projects that it will hire more than 100,000 veterans over the next five years.

Most of the jobs will be in stores and clubs while others will be in distribution centers and at the corporate office.

Walmart also is guaranteeing a job at nearby store or club for military spouses who work at a Walmart or Sam's Club and move to a different part of the country because of a military transfer.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:

I mean it's not like the hire Veterans or anything ... wait they do ...Walmart starts new effort to hire military veterans

The retailer says it will offer a job to any honorably discharged veteran within a year of active duty. Walmart projects that it will hire more than 100,000 veterans over the next five years.

Most of the jobs will be in stores and clubs while others will be in distribution centers and at the corporate office.

Walmart also is guaranteeing a job at nearby store or club for military spouses who work at a Walmart or Sam's Club and move to a different part of the country because of a military transfer.

I'm very curious how you think that relates to my point at all. Because it seems highly irrelevant.

waauw wrote:I'm not trying to protect Gadaffi, but the current Libya isn't much better. Militia's from local gang leaders run free on the streets fighting and committing acts of terrorism. There is an ever increasing threat from the Mahgreb Al Quiada. Any economic shock or any increase in global food prices could tip it to the muslim fundamentalist side completely. The country is entirely unstable.

In the US, there are religious fundamentalists thinking they can "pray the gay away."
In the Middle East, there are religious fundamentalists thinking they can "pray the famine away."

GreecePwns wrote:

waauw wrote:I'm not trying to protect Gadaffi, but the current Libya isn't much better. Militia's from local gang leaders run free on the streets fighting and committing acts of terrorism. There is an ever increasing threat from the Mahgreb Al Quiada. Any economic shock or any increase in global food prices could tip it to the muslim fundamentalist side completely. The country is entirely unstable.

In the US, there are religious fundamentalists thinking they can "pray the gay away."
In the Middle East, there are religious fundamentalists thinking they can "pray the famine away."

Hell, in the US there are religious fundamentalists who believe they can pray sickness and disease away.