WWTBAM Bored

In this video, in response to a question from a veteran, Rep. O'Rourke (who is running against Ted Cruz for the Senate) explains why, in his view, it's not disrespectful for NFL players to take a knee during the national anthem.

I've been waiting to see whether his campaign is viable to decide whether to contribute to his campaign. After watching this video, I'm not at all sure I care any more. He may well get my money even if I don't think he can win. --Bob

Please do send him your money.

I can't afford to send him money, but I will vote for him and for Ted Cruz to slither back under his rock.

Very impressive indeed.

Beto O'Rouke Tells Black American Illegals Needed To Work Cotton Gin

BackInTex wrote:Very impressive indeed.

Beto O'Rouke Tells Black American Illegals Needed To Work Cotton Gin

You can tell when BIT is getting nervous.

Beto O'Rourke Leads Cruz by 2 Among Likely Voters

BackInTex wrote:Very impressive indeed.

Beto O'Rouke Tells Black American Illegals Needed To Work Cotton Gin

Why are we limiting immigration arbitrarily when there are lots of jobs at legal wages going unfilled because employers can't find anyone willing to take them at the wages they can afford to pay? It makes more sense to help our economy by accepting workers who will help us grow our economy.

I believe the employers in this case because if they could afford higher wages, I believe they'd make the economically rational decision to fill the jobs by increasing wages rather than allowing the jobs to remain unfilled. In other words, their actions (allowing the positions to remain unfilled) speak louder than words to me. --Bob

Aside from the fact he completely ignores the racist undertones of Beto's comment...

Bob78164 wrote: I believe the employers in this case because if they could afford higher wages, I believe they'd make the economically rational decision to fill the jobs by increasing wages rather than allowing the jobs to remain unfilled. In other words, their actions (allowing the positions to remain unfilled) speak louder than words to me. --Bob

If employers can not be profitable by increasing wages enough to fill vacancies then it their products that are not needed or wanted. We don't need to import poverty to put undesired products in the market.

By the way, the population of Roscoe, TX, which Beto was talking about is 75% white and 1% black. So it's not poor blacks unwilling to work the cotton gins; it's poor whites unwilling to work the gins. Here in Georgia, we have poultry processing plants that involve some of the most disgusting work around. They are located in areas with largely white populations yet the workforce in predominantly Hispanic.

BackInTex wrote:Very impressive indeed.

Beto O'Rouke Tells Black American Illegals Needed To Work Cotton Gin

He did not say illegal immigrants are needed to work the cotton gin, he said immigrants are needed.

BTW, cotton gin tastes terrible.

BackInTex wrote:Aside from the fact he completely ignores the racist undertones of Beto's comment...

Bob78164 wrote: I believe the employers in this case because if they could afford higher wages, I believe they'd make the economically rational decision to fill the jobs by increasing wages rather than allowing the jobs to remain unfilled. In other words, their actions (allowing the positions to remain unfilled) speak louder than words to me. --Bob

If employers can not be profitable by increasing wages enough to fill vacancies then it their products that are not needed or wanted. We don't need to import poverty to put undesired products in the market.

That's just not true. All it means is that the marginal value of those employees is less than their marginal costs at the wage rates the employees are demanding (plus a reasonable return on capital). If people currently excluded from the work force are willing to perform the work at lower legal rates, then everyone wins.

Crops aren't rotting on the ground because people don't want them. It's because not enough Americans are willing to accept the wages being offered to pick them. If foreigners are willing to accept those wages and if the wages are sufficient to allow them an acceptable standard of living (one that doesn't require public support), then why not accept their labor? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Aside from the fact he completely ignores the racist undertones of Beto's comment...

Bob78164 wrote: I believe the employers in this case because if they could afford higher wages, I believe they'd make the economically rational decision to fill the jobs by increasing wages rather than allowing the jobs to remain unfilled. In other words, their actions (allowing the positions to remain unfilled) speak louder than words to me. --Bob

If employers can not be profitable by increasing wages enough to fill vacancies then it their products that are not needed or wanted. We don't need to import poverty to put undesired products in the market.

That's just not true. All it means is that the marginal value of those employees is less than their marginal costs at the wage rates the employees are demanding (plus a reasonable return on capital). If people currently excluded from the work force are willing to perform the work at lower legal rates, then everyone wins.

Crops aren't rotting on the ground because people don't want them. It's because not enough Americans are willing to accept the wages being offered to pick them. If foreigners are willing to accept those wages and if the wages are sufficient to allow them an acceptable standard of living (one that doesn't require public support), then why not accept their labor? --Bob

I forgot. Economics is not in your wheelhouse.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Aside from the fact he completely ignores the racist undertones of Beto's comment...



If employers can not be profitable by increasing wages enough to fill vacancies then it their products that are not needed or wanted. We don't need to import poverty to put undesired products in the market.

That's just not true. All it means is that the marginal value of those employees is less than their marginal costs at the wage rates the employees are demanding (plus a reasonable return on capital). If people currently excluded from the work force are willing to perform the work at lower legal rates, then everyone wins.

Crops aren't rotting on the ground because people don't want them. It's because not enough Americans are willing to accept the wages being offered to pick them. If foreigners are willing to accept those wages and if the wages are sufficient to allow them an acceptable standard of living (one that doesn't require public support), then why not accept their labor? --Bob

I forgot. Economics is not in your wheelhouse.

Why am I wrong? Don't be afraid to use math. --Bob

This thread title is always good for a chuckle.

tlynn78 wrote:This thread title is always good for a chuckle.

Get used to calling him Senator O'Rourke.

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:This thread title is always good for a chuckle.

Get used to calling him Senator O'Rourke.

Chuckle.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:This thread title is always good for a chuckle.

Get used to calling him Senator O'Rourke.

Chuckle.

Indeed. I don't even call my own senators, Senator.

Here's another great excerpt of a speech by O'Rourke, about the Dallas cop who mistakenly shot a man in his own home:

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1043278255740973058

Oddly, I saw this clip, not on YouTube, but on Twitter, where it was posted by Cruz, just before the two debated in Dallas. Cruz must agree with O'Rourke that police shouldn't shoot innocent people in their homes. I found a longer video of the same speech on YouTube that also has some controversial opinions, for example, discrimination against ex-convicts is the new Jim Crow. Maybe Cruz's staff posted the wrong clip.

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:This thread title is always good for a chuckle.

Get used to calling him Senator O'Rourke.

Is his dad giving him a new nickname?

BTW, who are you voting for for senator of AZ?

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:This thread title is always good for a chuckle.

Get used to calling him Senator O'Rourke.

More like Sgt O'Rourke.
I don't know why everybody says you're so dumb.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:This thread title is always good for a chuckle.

Get used to calling him Senator O'Rourke.

Is his dad giving him a new nickname?

BTW, who are you voting for for senator of AZ?

Kyrsten Sinema, of course. She's in a statistical tie with Martha McSally.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:BTW, who are you voting for for senator of AZ?

Kyrsten Sinema, of course. She's in a statistical tie with Martha McSally.

BiT seems to be aware of the controversy around Sinema. She was a far-left antiwar activist 15 years ago, but in recent years, especially in Congress, she's been very pro-military.

Beto's theme song:

The end of the Civil War was near
When quite accidentally,
A hero who sneezed abruptly seized
Retreat and reversed it to victory.

His medal of honor pleased and thrilled
his proud little family group.
While pinning it on some blood was spilled
And so it was planned he'd command F Troop.

Where Indian fights are colorful sights
and nobody takes a lickin'
Where pale face and redskin
Both turn chicken.

When drilling and fighting get them down,
They know their morale can't droop.
As long as they all relax in town
Before they resume with a bang and a boom
BE-TO!

(I got that from bite-bart. Or was it Laura Ingram. I can't remember. I wish we had a conservative batphone.)

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:BTW, who are you voting for for senator of AZ?

Kyrsten Sinema, of course. She's in a statistical tie with Martha McSally.

BiT seems to be aware of the controversy around Sinema. She was a far-left antiwar activist 15 years ago, but in recent years, especially in Congress, she's been very pro-military.

You can be anti-war and pro-military at the same time.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:BTW, who are you voting for for senator of AZ?

Kyrsten Sinema, of course. She's in a statistical tie with Martha McSally.

BiT seems to be aware of the controversy around Sinema. She was a far-left antiwar activist 15 years ago, but in recent years, especially in Congress, she's been very pro-military.

So what someone did or who they were 15 years ago doesn't matter now? What about 35 years ago?

Bob Juch wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Kyrsten Sinema, of course. She's in a statistical tie with Martha McSally.

BiT seems to be aware of the controversy around Sinema. She was a far-left antiwar activist 15 years ago, but in recent years, especially in Congress, she's been very pro-military.

You can be anti-war and pro-military at the same time.

But she wasn't. She was anti-both.