This is real take it serious, who will believe that a herb can cure 7
years HIV in my body, i never believe that this will work i have spend a
lot getting drugs from the hospital to keep me healthy, what i was waiting
for is death because i was broke. One day i heard about this great man who
is well known of HIV and cancer cure, i decided to email him, unknowingly
to me that this will be the end of the HIV aids in my body, he prepare the
herb for me, and give me instruction on how to take it, at the end of the
two week, he told me to go to the hospital for a check up, and i went,
surprisingly after the test the doctor confirm me negative, i thought it
was a joke, i went to another hospital, it was also negative, then i took
my friend who was also HIV positive to the Dr, after the treatment she was
also confirm negative . He also have the herb to cure cancer... please i
want everyone with this virus to be free, that is why am dropping his
email address, email@example.com...his phone number[2347069492065, 2347050485554]... do email him he is a great man.
Thank you for saving my life, and I promise I will always testify for your
IT (ffz) is using freedom of speech and religion to defame our community. Despicable. If IT wants to be religious and practice religions tenets as he interprets them, then by all means IT should do that. But IT should not impose IT's tenets on all of humanity. IT just does not understand the live and let live mantra. I am willing to let IT do IT's thing and feel righteous and self-indignant going about it and IT could simply let us do our thing. That way IT can always feel superior to others who are less than IT. I have said all I am on this subject and given the likes/ dislikes, IT is irrelavant and most here are on the right side of fairness, dignity and HISTORY.
So, my cherry picking is wrong, but yours is right?
You're not a TROLLSLAYER, you're just another lame troll.
"Raise it too high and as John says, they will be replaced with machines."
Again, the problem here is with the mechanisms of capitalism, not wages. End the pursuit of profit above all other concerns, and this problem goes away.
Unless, of course, you honestly think that it's a good thing for wealth to concentrate into the fewest number of hands. Oh, and please explain again how everyone working for the lowest possible wages actually spreads wealth. I love that one.
In my previous two visits to Basico, I had been very disappointed with the quality and quantity of the food and drinks. But last night my husband and I tried it again after the new chef started, and everything has remarkably improved! The food was delicious and plentiful, and my drink was good and strong, too. Definitely give this place another chance.
A 10 cent an hour raise over ten years is beyond nuts, that's why the hell is anyone still there money! If one shows up on time and learns the job/picks up skills then any reasonable person would be expecting a raise or asking what the problem is. 7. 25 is low but 15.00 bucks an hour is gonna require some knowledge and skills. Bump minimum up to 8.50 and remember that you ain't supposed to be doing the same job forever.
Screams hipster joint, I don't see this place lasting long, especially with without alcohol and a very limited menu.
McNerney does not even care about airplanes; The exec game is all about yielding power. McNerney is not alone; this is pervasive in Chicago. His "joke" just showed that the unions pinched the right nerve. Antagonizing 160,000+ employees is a good recipe for trouble once that power goes away. It is his dad Walter James McNerney Sr. and the political ties he had with the Lyndon Johnson, Nixon and Bush administrations that got him to the Procter & Gamble, McKinsey, 3M and GE managerial positions--not his brain. His father--a notable architect of health policies that gave us Medicare, medicaid and Social Security-- simply opened the doors for him--a no brainer. His dad became the CEO Blue Cross, Blue Shield headquarted in Chicago--what a coincidence; Boeing relocated there. Graduating from Yale and Harvard does not mean much when your family can yield that much power. McNerney is about power and politics--not airplanes. His approach is reflected in the Boeing organizational structure and culture he shaped over the past decade--there are lords and serfs. Walter James (Jim) McNerney Jr. is more subtile than his mentor Jack Welch at GE, however, they are both one of the same breed. a donkey with lipstick is still a donkey.Take out the arrogant tone, assertiveness of his voice and start listening to his words. His remarks during his earnings call show that he does not even understand basic capital flows in relation to his own company stock. This is a CEO whose brain is just spitting out the garbage he gets from his advisors. It will be hard from him to retire; who would give up on 16-20 million per year and the power to make 100,000 serfs cower at your own will.
Madra Rua near Park Circle in North Charleston is really good (and their burgers are fantastic), he should have just gone out there...
"The minimum wage of $1.60 an hour in 1968 would be $10.86 today when adjusted for inflation".
The minimum wage probably is due for an increase, but not to nonsense values like $15 or even Mat's insane $21/hr.
About halfway between the inflation adjusted high of 1968 and the low of 2006 would be about $8.25/hr., a reasonable amount.
Raise it too high and as John says, they will be replaced with machines.
"If the minimum wage had simply tracked U.S. productivity gains since 1968, it would be $21.72 an hour -- three times what it is now."
And if it had tracked inflation since 1989 it would be about $6.30 now. See? I can cherry pick numbers just like you do. Funny how you cherry picked the highest minimum wage vs. inflation number and act like that's where it should be now.
Once again, if someone is paid $7.25/ hr. it's because that is what they are worth.
What they want or think they are worth is irrelevant. Maybe the nice lady should have spent her evenings at Tech, then she wouldn't have this problem.
That's not the point. The minimum wage is criminally low.
I give it 3 months...max
Should I take that as you're not up to answering any of the questions?
FYI, Christ didn't say anything about any of those behaviors you deem deviant. Does that mean Christians should think they're OK? Christ is not the only figure in scripture who taught. You actually might be a fan of Red Letter Christians who think if Christ didn't speak explicitly about it, its otherwise mention in the bible is irrelevant.
Again tupper, why do you continue to want to make religion your straw man. Thomas Jefferson (a stretch to call him a Christian) said:
"Buggery is twofold. 1. With mankind, 2. With beasts. Buggery is the Genus, of which Sodomy and Bestiality, are the species."
Do you want to make Jefferson your whipping boy as well? Do you want to impute to him your mindset that religion must be the blame for anyone's wrong thinking? To Jefferson, homosexuality was a crime against nature. There was nothing religious about his objections and those of many others.
But you keep creating that straw man.
Not all jobs are the same. Thus, not all jobs pay the same. There seems to be some idea that jobs are commodities, and everyone that has one should therefore have all their expenses paid.
What if she had 6 kids, or 8? Is an employer responsible to pay you an agreed wage or to cover all your expenses?
Having said that I admire her for her hard work and wish her well. A $0.10/hr raise in a decade is nuts. Surely with her experience she can find a higher paying job?
Spare me the platitudes about equality. From the beginning, same-sex marriage zealots have stated that was their goal. And, unsurprisingly, they've been liars.
California was one of the first states to create civil unions that had all the rights under the state's laws as did marriages. And what did homosexuals say? They said that was not good enough. Homosexuals went on to challenge Prop 8 in California. What was the need for doing so if equality was the goal?
This debate is not about equality. You can put that notion to rest. It's not about tolerance, so put that argument to bed. It's about a stamp of approval. It's about forcing the rest of society to give nothing but full-fledged endorsement.
Have you looked to see what homosexuals have done to those who donated to the Prop 8 cause in California? Did you see what they did to Brendan Eich? This is not a movement interested in equality. It's a fascist movement most interested in using blunt force to trample opposition while anointing itself with unfettered approval.
Silly people pretending that the state bows to any church. Preachers say "by the power vested in me by the State of South Carolina, I pronounce you married." That marriage ain't valid if the state didn't issue a license. A wedding conducted by a notary or JP is totally valid without requiring the endorsement of a church.
While admiring the nuptials of European royalty, have any of you narrow-minds ever wondered why there are two ceremonies, one civil and one church? Only in America does the state allow a church official to perform a legal wedding.
Marriage is a civil contract with serious property-ownership concerns, and it can only be entered into by consenting adults. This is why slaves couldn't marry. Not because white people feared the "let no man put asunder" clause, but because slaves could not enter legal contracts.
Why don't we start out with what the founders of this nation, those who gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, thought of marriage. I give you this for enjoyable reading:
If you can find any evidence from our Founders that they understood marriage to be something other than an institution of a man and a woman, I'm all ears. Some of you like setting up phony arguments about religion as a straw man. We can leave religion out of it and talk about what the Founders believed it to be - and you'll lose that argument as well.
The legal definition of marriage was NOT gender neutral for 200 years. At least in the case of the federal government, marriage had NO gender-defining legalese. That's not the same as saying it was gender neutral. The understanding of marriage was axiomatic. It needed no defining. The federal govt. and many states only began to define marriage when 20th- and 21st-century fad-setters began, under an equality facade, to make it something different.
You say MY side changed 200 years of history when DOMA was passed. Who is MY side? The bill passed in both houses of Congress by overwhelming majorities - including a 2-1 margin in favor amongst Democrats, and Bill Clinton signed it into law. And who was changing anything if not those wanting to dumb marriage down?
Sean Brock knows at least as much about Mexican food as he does about lowcountry South Carolina food. Which is to say, he doesn't know Oaxaca from Vera Cruz.
For the record freefirezone, I, nor anyone in the lgbt community seeking marriage condone any kind of incest, beastiality, pedophilia or any other REAL deviant behaviors no more than your righteous *ss! You, sir, are an insult to decent human dignity and using religion as you and your ilk do is blatant disregard to what your Jesus really taught. Apparently, what comes from the altar is intentional mis-interpretation in order to judge those you deem less "pure". I am incenced at your implications toward our community and tired of having to continue to endure the debasing of our community that, for me, started in grade school and you are making d*mn sure to keep carrying the torch of lies and hate! Since you offer no respect, you get none. GO TO YOUR H*LL!
Let's pretend that the update wasn't on this story when I posted my comment, OK?
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper