Liberal Forum

I see you ignored my question Puss.I wonder why?Bleats the Democrat Operative Liar who has stonewalled every question I've asked for a couple of years.How would you balance Obama's $1.6 trillion deficit?Come on, show a little courage and answer the question.Avenger_of_Justice is not the liar, you are.I don't have time to waste arguing over fine details of policy with a shameless liar like you.No matter what my stance is, no matter what the facts about Delay and the Marianas, you'll distort it and smear both of us.Just like you lied and defended a literal rapist/ serial felon, Bill Clinton and have never corrected a single lie you told.There was no credible evidence whatsoever that Bill Clinton raped anybody, yet a wingnut like you ignored that and tried to ruin him.You failed. What kind of shameless hack would blindly defend a real life rapist?And again, here's the original accusation:you have been an outspoken proponent of sweatshops and involuntary servitude (children who work for their entire lifetimes to pay off their parents' debt in developing countriesWhere have I ever expressed "children working their entire lifetimes to pay off their parents' debt?"Rotsa ruck, liar.

Where have I ever expressed "children working their entire lifetimes to pay off their parents' debt?"I see as always when trapped, you resort to your usual little game of semantics.Did you literally say that 'children should work their entire lifetimes to pay off their parent's debt'?No.But you did support the deplorable conditions in the sweatshops in Saipan, and you supported Tom Delay's efforts to block any legislation to improve conditions and circumstances for those workers.With little or no knowledge of the actual situation you responded with your typical knee-jerk defense of all things Republican by saying.......No legislation is necessary...I'm always fascinated by your habit of calling others 'partisan hacks'. Take a look in the mirror Puss.

I see you ignored my question Puss.I wonder why?Maybe this is why......What Clem said about sweat shop workers in the Northern Marianas Islands:No legislation was necessary to help workers that were forced into indentured servitude and prostitution and forced to have abortions.There's your free market capitalism at it's best, huh Puss?Avenger_of_Justice is not the liar, you are.Ah, thank you for substantiating what I said earlier with hard evidence. Like I said, I have never met a right-wing corporate fascist who hasn't been in bed with the idea of making third world workers labor in sweatshop/slave like conditions. Many of those workers can hardly pay for daily expenses, but the RW corporate propaganda machine assumes everyone from countries like Thailand is happy being treated like animals. I really didn't want to dig up his quotes from months or years ago, only to have him deny them/change the subject/resort to red herrings and then have the time go to waste. If he wants to think he doesn't support sweatshops, then he can go right ahead and think that. Must be selective amnesia, which requires some psychologist's attention. As about his bleating about the deficit, I hardly think someone who was busy with his nose up Bush's *** is qualified. His ignorance on the subject of foreign defaults also is unsurprising. Edited by Avenger_of_Justice, 17 April 2011 - 04:40 PM.

Where have I ever expressed "children working their entire lifetimes to pay off their parents' debt?"I see as always when trapped, you resort to your usual little game of semantics.Did you literally say that 'children should work their entire lifetimes to pay off their parent's debt'?No.In other words, you and your psychotic moonbat friend lied through your teeth, as usual.I don't support involuntary servitude, and not a word I've written would show that.But you'll simply lie anyway, your Modus Operandi.But you did support the deplorable conditions in the sweatshops in Saipan....I don't have time to refute your dishonest smears.You can't debate issues, so you lie and smear and spread Disinformation, like the fawning Clinton/Democrat toady you are.I mean, what kind of raving psychotic would defend a rapist/ serial felon like Clinton?A raving psychotic like you.I'm always fascinated by your habit of calling others 'partisan hacks'. Take a look in the mirror Puss. Who told the following ugly lies?There was no credible evidence whatsoever that Bill Clinton raped anybody.....And you dishonestly smeared Clinton's rape victim.Miss Broaddrick and her so-called witnesses were likely on Richard Mellon Scaife's payroll.F*** you and your mirror.

More flying monkeys revealed by the Associated Press.http://news.yahoo.co..._ge/us_no_taxesWASHINGTON As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank."It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.In all, the tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemptions, an average of about $8,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS.More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes.Obama wants the wealthy to pay so "the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford."Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000."I simply point out to people, `Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you."There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point."This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"The law is packed with tax breaks that help narrow special interests. But many of the biggest tax breaks benefit millions of American families at just about every income level, making them difficult for politicians to touch.The vast majority of those who escape federal income taxes have low and medium incomes, and most of them pay other taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and retail sales taxes.The share of people paying no federal income tax has dropped slightly the past two years. It was 47 percent for 2009. The main difference for 2010 was the expiration of a tax break that exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, Williams said.In 2009, nearly 35 million taxpayers got a tax break for paying interest on their home mortgages, and nearly 36 million taxpayers took the $1,000-per-child tax credit. About 41 million households reduced their federal income taxes by deducting state and local income and sales taxes from their taxable income.About 36 million families cut their taxes by nearly $35 billion by deducting charitable donations, and 28 million taxpayers saved a total of $24 billion because their income from Social Security and railroad pensions was untaxed."As a matter of policy, there would be a lot of ways to save money and actually make these things work better," said Leonard Burman, a public affairs professor at Syracuse University. "As a matter of politics, it's really, really difficult."What a bunch of idiots.One of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard: "If you want to pay more in taxes, nothing's stopping you from writing a check to the IRS."Which obviously misses the POINT of paying taxes in the first place, which is to support social services.It's as ridiculous as the assertion that if you're "concerned" about the environment, you should stop driving or using fossil fuels. Right wing extremism combined with arrogance and ignorance.

I don't support involuntary servitude, and not a word I've written would show that.Every word you wrote about Tom Delay and the Marianas Islands showed that you do indeed support involuntary servitude. I don't have time to refute your dishonest smears.Even if you had all the time in the world, you couldn't refute what I said, because it's true.You've totally ignored the fact that these workers borrowed and scraped together thousands of dollars on the promise that they were coming to 'America' to get a job, only to find themselves locked behind barbed wire in the Northern Marianas Islands, a U.S. Territory, where the clothes they made bore a 'Made In The U.S.A.' label.They could never hope to save up enough money to repay the lenders they borrowed money from, after they paid for rent, food, medical expenses...etc. So going home was not an option.You said:They agreed to live in separate areas, because they're guest workers, not citizens.If those conditions are so terrible, why did they agree to work under them?They didn't agree you pinhead. Don't you **** get it? They were tricked.You also said:Who are you to destroy the chance for them to earn five times or more what they earn at home?****. I'm the one who is destroying their chances? Chances to what? Work 20 hours a day, six days a week, many times without getting paid? Live in squalor behind barbed wire? Work as prostitutes? Be physically abused? And of course you said:No legislation is necessary, so as usual, you're dishonestly smearing conservatives. 100:1 the legislation you refer to went far, far, far beyond the problems you cite.No legislation was necessary to get these poor workers out of indentured servitude and forced prostitution, and to prevent them from being forced to have abortions?You say the legislation went far, far, far beyond the problems I cited. You even underlined it, as if it's a link, which is your usual deceptive practice. Just like most statements you make, it's based on nothing. You have no idea what was in the legislation.How could any legislation designed to get people out of those circumstances ever go too far?What do you mean by too far? Can you explain?Was it okay to trick them as to where these jobs were? Is the barbed wire okay? The forced prostitution? The mandatory abortions? Which parts of the legislation went too far?You can't answer that can you? Because you don't know what was in the legislation, yet being the huge [butt opening] that you are, you're willing to bet, sight unseen, that it went too far. Coming from rural villages and the big city slums of poor Asian countries, these garment workers began their sojourn in the Marianas with a huge financial deficit, having paid recruiters as much as $7,000 to obtain a one-year contract job (renewable at the employer’s discretion). Many of them borrow the money—a small fortune in China, where most are recruited—from lenders who charge as much as 20 percent interest. In a situation akin to indentured servitude, workers cannot earn back their recruitment fee and pay annual company supplied housing and food expenses of about $2,100 without working tremendous hours of overtime. Before being able to save her first dollar, a worker who owes, say, $5,000 to her recruiter has to work nearly 2,500 hours at Saipan’s current minimum wage—which equals six more 40-hour workweeks than exist in a year. And that’s assuming she gets paid. Increasingly, workers are filing formal complaints that they have not received their wages, with some women going without paychecks for over five months. Still, workers at RIFU and other Saipan garment factories labor six days a week, sometimes up to 20 hours a day.Paradise Lost-Greed, Sex Slavery, Forced Abortions and Right-Wing MoralistsIn the early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Labor began looking into allegations of garment industry worker abuses, focusing on factories owned by one of Saipan's biggest employers, Willie Tan. In 1992, the department filed suit against Tan and ordered him to pay $9 million in back wages and damages to workers at five of his plants-at the time, the largest fine ever imposed by the Department of Labor. The suit alleged that employees were forced to work more than 80 hours a week, below the islands' already low minimum wage and with no overtime. Further, workers were kept locked inside their barracks and were not allowed to leave during their off-work hours Tan and his associates in the government of the Northern Marianas looked to American lobbyists for protection against potential federal regulation. Jack Abramoff was one of those lobbyists.Abramoff pocketed nearly $8 million from his contracts with Saipan between 1995 and 2001, according to the Northern Marianas' public auditor. And with the help of Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and others he accomplished his goal of keeping congressional hands off the commonwealth's sweatshops, despite a growing public outcry over the continuing abuse of immigrant workers.Between 1995 and 1998 — in testimony before Congress; in investigations by the Department of Labor and the Department of the Interior; in congressional fact-finding missions; and in numerous media accounts, including a report which aired on ABC's 20/20 as "The Shame of Saipan"-the mistreatment of nearly 18,000 workers in the Northern Marianas became widely known. The public and the nation's lawmakers heard tales of women forced to undergo abortions in order to keep their jobs, of women and young girls guaranteed jobs in the restaurant industry only to find that they would be working as prostitutes; of long hours with no overtime and illegally substandard pay; of foul living conditions and beatings and humiliations. Tom DeLay visited Saipan in for the New Years holiday 1997/1998 — at the invitation of Abramoff, whom DeLay called one of his "closest and dearest friends." DeLay's trip — which boasted luxury hotels, fine white-sand beaches and several premier golf courses — was paid for by the government of the Northern Marianas and was one of a number of junkets the government sprung for at the urging of Abramoff. When DeLay returned to Washington, he kept his promise to his clients in the Northern Marianas regarding federal regulation. Although the Senate in 1999 passed legislation that would have stipulated that any garment bearing a "Made in the U.S.A." label would have to be made by American workers, and more than 200 members of the House co-sponsored similar legislation the same year, the efforts were never made into law. Willie Tan, the Saipan garment giant was captured on hidden camera by by Global Survival Network saying that DeLay had effectively told him not to worry about the legislation. According to Tan, "[Delay] said, 'Willie, if they elect me majority whip, I make the schedule of the Congress, and I'm not going to put it on the schedule.' So Tom told me, 'Forget it, Willie. No chance.' " In 2000, Republican Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska authored a bill that would have extended U.S. labor protections and minimum-wage laws to the Northern Marianas. The Senate bill passed with unanimous consent. Again, it died in the House.LinkFor you to say that no legislation was necessary to help these workers, makes you just as big a piece of **** as that weasel Tom Delay.And yes, you.....just like Delay and Abramoff....do support involuntary servitude.Every word you've written on this subject proves that.You blamed the victims, said that no legislation was necessary to help them, and you said that the proposed legislation went too far, even though you haven't a clue what was in it.Go ahead....call me a liar again. Those are your own words. Edited by MistyBlue, 18 April 2011 - 03:34 PM.

Every word you wrote about Tom Delay and the Marianas Islands showed that you do indeed support involuntary servitude. Go ahead....call me a liar again. Those are your own words.You're a shameless liar, and I won't waste time finding the context of my words or the details of the debate.I categorically do not support involuntary servitude, so f*** you and your smears.Regarding your integrity, is there a single, solitary Democrat Talking Point Lie you haven't regurgitated?Only Bush is responsible for the collapse.Obama is to blame for only a tiny part of his $1.6 trillion deficit, despite his and Dems ratcheting spending to almost 25% of GDP.Clinton was impeached only over a BJ, not his many felonies and impeachable acts.Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and liberal lending policies didn't play a central role in the financial collapse.You're a shameless liar not a word from whom can be trusted. It's beyond freaking dispute.

Cost Of Tax Cuts For America's Rich Exceeds Value Of Budget CutsNEW YORK -- Today, as Americans submit their tax returns, the wealthiest earners will each reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax savings.As part of a law passed late last year, the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest Americans were extended for two years. The estimated cost to the government of that portion of the tax deal, $42 billion this fiscal year, exceeds the stated $38 billion value of the savings from the federal budget cuts lawmakers approved last week.Those budget cuts, which will affect many services for poor Americans, add more strain to a still weak economy, leading some economists to lament that this allocation of federal resources is not the most efficient way to promote economic growth."I don't think it's a good time to be trimming federal outlays if you're interested in the vulnerability of the economy," said economist Gary Burtless, formerly with the Labor Department and now at the Brookings Institution. "I'm not quite sure where the theories come from that this is going to strengthen economic growth over the next 12 to 18 months. It's going to have the reverse effect. It's going to slow it down."In the wake of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the economic recovery has been uneven. The financial sector, which employs some of the country's wealthiest citizens as its executives, has seen profits rebound. Pay at top financial firms has multiplied, while wages for most Americans have stagnated.Between January 2008 and January 2010, the private sector lost nearly 8 million jobs. Last year, payrolls began to expand, but the pace of the recovery has been slow. With companies reluctant to spend their reserve cash on hiring, the unemployment rate remains high. Last month, 8.8 percent of the workforce was unemployed, a figure that would be significantly greater if it included the millions of jobless Americans who have entirely given up looking for work.Thanks to the tax cut extension passed last year, struggling Americans will get to keep a few thousand dollars that otherwise would have gone to the government. A family making between $50,000 and $75,000, for instance, saves just over $2,000 on average, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. From a broad economic perspective, that's money Americans can spend on themselves, theoretically boosting demand, stimulating business activity and generally helping promote a recovery.But the extension of the tax breaks for the wealthy have proven more controversial, especially as job-creation has remained slow. Under the extension, a family that earns between $500,000 and $1 million gets an average $25,000 tax break, according to the Tax Policy Center. A household earning more than $1 million gets more than $130,000.Over two years, tax cuts for the wealthy will cost the government about $120 billion and will create or save about 290,000 jobs, according to analysis by the White House-aligned research group Center for American Progress. That's a cost of about $400,000 per job, many of which will likely yield salaries far below that value.The tax extension seems especially hard for critics to swallow in light of last week's federal budget deal, which calls for spending cuts of about $38 billion. In comparison, tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the government $42 billion during this fiscal year, according to Michael Linden, director for tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress.The cuts come at a period of economic weakness, when those who most rely on government services struggle to put food on the table. Last week, the International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for U.S. economic growth -- by the same degree as it cut its forecast for Japan, whose economy faces a major strain as the country attempts to rebuild after a devastating earthquake and tsunami.But some fiscal restraint is necessary for supporting long-term economic growth, said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics. In theory, government spending cuts encourage private businesses to boost their own spending, thereby helping stimulate economic activity. A reduction of public spending might also help stem inflationary pressures and boost investors' confidence.While these proposed cuts represent only a small percentage of the year's budget, they are an important first step, said Zandi, who has advised lawmakers from both parties."I think it's entirely appropriate to focus on discretionary spending, and how we can reduce it going forward," Zandi said. "My druthers would not have been to cut as deeply right now, until the economy is off and running."The deficit-reduction plan put forth by President Barack Obama in a speech on Wednesday includes a combination of cutting spending and ending tax breaks for the wealthy when those naturally expire. He laid out a strategy for reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years, calling for additional cuts across the board."If they make serious cuts over time, that's actually going to be quite good for the economy," said Andrew Lo, professor of finance at the MIT Sloan School of Management. "It's bitter medicine, but we've got to take it."Alan Greenspan: U.S. Must 'Let Bush Tax Cuts Lapse' - VIDEOWith the risk of a national debt crisis lurking over the nation, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan can't agree with continuing vast tax cuts for America's richest taxpayers.Appearing on MSNBC's Meet The Press on Sunday, Greenspan was trenchant, saying that Bush-era tax cuts, extended last year by the Obama administration, must be allowed to expire with the federal deficit, once tomorrow's problem, quickly developing into a threat to today's economy."I think this crisis is so imminent and so difficult that I think we have to allow the so-called Bush tax cuts all to expire," Greenspan said. "That is a very big number," he continued, adding that taxes should return to the higher levels instituted by the Clinton administration in the 1990s not just for the wealthiest taxpayers, but for all Americans.

You're a shameless liar, and I won't waste time finding the context of my words or the details of the debate.You won't do it because you know it will be a futile effort. Your words were quite clear. Hoist by your own petard.

Cost of Tax cuts for American's Rich Exceeds Value of Budget CutsAre you blaming Repubs for this?Because had Obama and Dems not opposed every cut, it would have been far, far larger.And had taxes been raised on "the rich," roughly half of whom are businesses, that glorious Obama Economy with its roaring 11.5% real unemployment rate would be even worse.Did Obama's economic policies fail? Come on, give an honest answer. You're a shameless liar, and I won't waste time finding the context of my words or the details of the debate.You won't do it because you know it will be a futile effort. Your words were quite clear. Hoist by your own petard. Hey moonbat, read my lips. I do not support involuntary servitude, duuuh!You expect anyone to believe I do? Name 'em, liar.

40% of Americans say they can't afford retirement.NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Gone are the plans to golf, garden or read on a creaky porch swing. Almost 40% of working Americans said they will never afford retirement, according to a report released Wednesday by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Retirement ranked as the most important issue out of all financial concerns facing Americans, including uninsured medical expenses and rising education costs. In fact, it topped the list for the second year in a row, the survey said. The majority, or 56%, of those polled said they were not saving for retirement, mostly because of the toll higher gas and food prices were taking on their budgets. Fifty-five percent said they didn't even know how much they need to save for retirement, while those that thought they did know often underestimated the amount, the AICPA said. Most workers have saved just $25,000 for retirement.When asked to estimate how much savings they needed to retire at age 65 and live for 20 years, most of those earning $50,000 to $75,000 a year said they needed $250,000 in savings. But assuming inflation and annual expenses of $50,000, that amount would run out in less than 10 years, the AICPA said. "These statistics suggest we are on the verge of a retirement crisis in America," Jordan Amin, chairman of the National CPA Financial Literacy Commission, said in a statement. "Americans don't know how to prepare for their twilight years, and many have put off figuring it out because they're struggling to make ends meet now."Mark Carruthers, a New York-based certified financial planner who specializes in retirement planning, said many of his retired clients often take distributions from their IRAs or other accounts to supplement their retirement savings. "I haven't met a client yet who just told me they saved too much for retirement," Carruthers said. "Most people don't start early enough and aren't investing long enough to reach their goal." Younger workers had the biggest discrepancy between expectations for retirement and how to prepare for it, according to the AICPA. Sixty percent of those aged 18 to 24 said they'll be able to retire, but 74% of those in that age bracket had no idea how much to save to make that happen. Edited by MistyBlue, 18 April 2011 - 03:56 PM.

What kind of Left Wing Flying Monkey runs a $1.6 trillion deficit, far, far more than taxing the rich can pay for?Bump for little Miss Marxist, who never, ever, ever, ever stonewalls questions.And never, ever, ever, ever lies.Another in a long line of threads in which liberals will have no answers, beyond stupidity.How would you liberal-left wingers solve the $1.6 trillion deficit? And how fast?Tax the rich!!!! which wouldn't come even close to doing so, but would devastate the economy.

Are you blaming Repubs for this? Would you like me to? Hey moonbat, read my lips. I do not support involuntary servitude, duuuh!Your own words prove otherwise.You expect anyone to believe I do? Name 'em, liar.Anyone who reads your posts on the subject.Don't get mad at me. You're the one who said that stuff.You want more? How about this?What' a "sweatshop" in the eyes of demented liberals? A business that pays higher than prevailing local wages, high enough to attract workers from abroad.Praising sweatshops? ROFLThey didn't 'attract' workers Puss. They tricked them. And they paid lower than the already low minimum wage in Saipan, not higher.More about the 'mythological' high wages paid by sweatshops in Saipan:Well gosh, let's send them home where they can live in even worse conditions, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for far, far less money.If you pushed Americans standards and wages on these companies, most would likely shut down completely and these high wages would be gone completely.That sure looks to me like you were defending the indentured servitude that took place in Saipan.You say the workers made a 'lot more money' than they could make at home, even though you have no idea how much they made, and you said the legislation 'went too far' even though you haven't read it.And I'm the liar. You seriously think that you can get away with just making stuff up?I've posted more than enough proof to show that what I said is true.All you've done is lie about the facts, and defend indentured servitude. Edited by MistyBlue, 18 April 2011 - 04:50 PM.

Some 31,000 textile workers live penned up like cattle by armed soldiers and barbed wire, and squeezed head to toe into filthy sleeping barracks, all of which was documented on film by U.S. investigators.The unhappy workers cannot just walk away, either: Like Appalachian coal miners a generation ago, they owe their souls to the company store, starting with factory recruiters, who charge Chinese peasants as much as $4,000 to get them out of China and into a "good job" in "America." Their low salaries make it nearly impossible to buy back their freedom. And so they stay. The small print in their contracts forbids sex, drinking -- and dissent. DeLay called Saipan's indentured worker system a 'free market success'.LinkThis is what you support Puss.You're no better than Tom Delay.

Hey moonbat, read my lips. I do not support involuntary servitude, duuuh!Your own words prove otherwise.Lies the troll.Praising sweatshops? ROFL"Sweatshop" is a derogatory term the Lying moonbat Left uses. As I noted, the workers were earning 4, 5 times what they would have at home.Moonbat like you would end that relative prosperity.They didn't 'attract' workers Puss. They tricked them. And they paid lower than the already low minimum wage in Saipan, not higher."They" did? Bullcrap. I'll bet 95% of the businesses did no such thing. You're a lying smear artist.If deceit was involved by a few business, that's breach of contract and fraud that doesn't require micro-management of all law abiding businesses.And Saipan's minimum wage was very, very high compared to what they'd earn in their home country.More about the 'mythological' high wages paid by sweatshops in Saipan:Well gosh, let's send them home where they can live in even worse conditions, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for far, far less money.If you pushed Americans standards and wages on these companies, most would likely shut down completely and these high wages would be gone completely.That sure looks to me like you were defending the indentured servitude that took place in Saipan.It sure looks like you're a shameless lying troll.And moonbat, what do the following words mean?Well gosh, let's send them home where they can live in even worse conditions, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for far, far less money.Leftist moonbat that you are, you'd end their chances at relative prosperity, sending them back to earn far, far, far less under poorer work conditions.I defended the right of businesses to hire these employees if the contract was honored and work environment reasonable.But the facts never get in your way.You say the workers made a 'lot more money' than they could make at home, even though you have no idea how much they made, and you said the legislation 'went too far' even though you haven't read it.I read it at the time, I've read about it.And I'm the liar. You seriously think that you can get away with just making stuff up?I've posted more than enough proof to show that what I said is true.All you've done is lie about the facts, and defend indentured servitude. Yes, without any doubt you are a shameless liar. Smear and lie, smear and lie, smear and lie, your Modus Operandi. What, isn't there a rapist/ serial felon for you to defend, moonbat?

Lies the troll. That's all you got? You're out of gas.Moonbat like you would end that relative prosperity.Only an assclown like you would call indentured servitude 'relative prosperity'.I defended the right of businesses to hire these employees if the contract was honored and work environment reasonable.WTF is reasonable about making people work up to 20 hours a day, six days a week, not paying them regularly, forcing them to live in over-crowded shacks with no plumbing, behind barbed wire, and forcing them to work as prostitutes?Only in Clemworld, would that be considered reasonable I guess.Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AK) said, "The last time we heard a justification that economic advances would be jeopardized if workers were treated properly was shortly before Appomattox."Had you lived back then, I'm sure you would have defended slavery as well. Edited by MistyBlue, 18 April 2011 - 05:03 PM.

You're a shameless liar.That's all you got? You're out of gas.Moonbats like you would end that relative prosperity.Only an assclown like you would call indentured servitude 'relative prosperity'.Lying freaking moonbat.WTF is reasonable about making people work up to 20 hours a day, six days a week, not paying them regularly, forcing them to live in over-crowded shacks with no plumbing, behind barbed wire, and forcing them to work as prostitutes?Hey, why not just make up utter bullcrap? When I was a boy, I lived in a shoebox in the middle of the road. I worked 26 hours/day, and when I got home, my father would rip into me with a bread knife!What you cite is the rare exception about what happened, and based on that rare exception, you smear me.Lying freaking moonbat.Had you lived back then, I'm sure you would have defended slavery as well.Silly, lying freaking moonbat.

When I was a boy, I lived in a shoebox in the middle of the road. I worked 26 hours/day, and when I got home, my father would rip into me with a bread knife!Well, that would explain your utter indifference to other people's suffering. Psychology 101: Projection is the art of the ugly human soul.HAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (By the way it's impossible to work 26 hours a day) I defended the right of businesses to hire these employees if the contract was honored and work environment reasonable.Nothing from your comments bears any resemblance to "reasonable." It's full of sh*t. Edited by Avenger_of_Justice, 18 April 2011 - 11:08 PM.

Apparently, Skeptic "tagged" Avenger of Justice.

What you cite is the rare exception about what happened, and based on that rare exception, you smear me.You say it's a 'rare exception', based on what? Because you said so?You seriously think you can continue to get away with that ****?I've posted article after article about the living and working conditions of the workers in Saipan.You've cited nothing but a bunch of lies that you pulled from your ***.Now let's see....which one of is more credible? Edited by MistyBlue, 19 April 2011 - 04:56 PM.