You are such a dishonest moron. Just the biggest lying douche bag I’ve ever encountered, and the stupidest.

You yourself claim there is…but you say it’s against conservative white men because they are losing their monopoly on power, impunity, and control and you obstinately won’t see it when it’s systematically directed against those that have never had much power or control.
Have you forgotten how you think Jan 6 defendants were subjected to uncountable injustices by the system? That’s systemic social injustice according to you.
Don’t you know Trump’s excuse for his pending indictment is the system full of “radical viscous racist prosecutors” is engineering social injustices against conservatives? That’s systemic racism according to him.
🤦‍♂️

Google Rasheem Carter and give another plausible explanation.

Wrap your head around that, it’s completely empty, you can fit it in….not that it will help since you wish to remain comatose, forever asleep dreaming nonsense, never Woken.

Actually no you haven’t, and yes you clearly do care what party they’re in. You may have said you think that, but your actions and arguments speak louder than your lies. Remember claiming you weren’t sexist at all minutes before (keyboard) screaming MGTOW!!!
Remember saying it was not just ok, but smart that Trump lied in depositions under oath? That only a stupid person would tell the truth if it might get them in trouble? Then you clearly stated wrong is right….and those are not the only instances.

You ignored the vote stealing, actually claimed the Republican vote harvester that admitted (his campaign workers) voting for himself thousands of times was punished when you KNOW he wasn’t because it was your district, and he remained in office until he withdrew on his own for personal reasons. Zero punishment whatsoever but you lie about it because he’s Republican.

You still call democrats the party of debauchery with zero evidence to cite, but can’t fathom that the reason I never find “my team” (I’m a Democrat only by default btw) doing that kind of wrong is because I only pay attention to reputable sources like court records and not often anonymous lying blowhards trying to score political points against their enemies, and reputable sources and police never find democrat representatives molesting children, trafficking them for sex, having cocaine fueled lemon parties, exposing themselves to pre teen girls in bowling alleys, picking up 12 year old girls in malls, having parties with Epstein and young girls and no one else, covering for child molesting coaches for decades, being long term pen palls with convicted kiddie porn producers while in office, admitting to driving for hours intending to have sex with an 11 year old girl, rewriting marriage laws so it’s legal to marry and have sex with 9 year old children, etc. …do I need to put names to all those charges? Because I can. You ignore every one of those credible accusations against Republicans and make up random accusations out of thin air about Democrats constantly.

Stealing, your hero Trump was convicted of stealing from charities for veterans, and students, and every contractor that ever worked for him, you don’t care one whit. He tried to steal an election (or two) and you cheer it on.

Cheating, why are you a Republican then, they get caught cheating for real daily, not MTG style baseless accusations based on someone’s Twitter claim. Your own district was the most egregious cheating scandal in decades, by republicans, and you would have gladly voted for him again, maybe twice. Have you forgotten how many of Trump’s administration ended up being unreported foreign assets? Hiding their foreign payments and cheating the system to allow foreign influence in our whitehouse?

It is odd, you would think statistically there must be some Democrat representative child molesters, I assume there are, but if there are they are smart enough that they aren’t getting caught. Republicans constantly are getting caught, and you are constantly ignoring it.

I do call out Pelosi for insider trading, and say she isn’t the only Democrat guilty of that crime against America, but I also say Republicans do it as a matter of course daily. Republicans went to court to make it legal for corporations to bribe them with pacs and super pacs and block any attempt to make bribery illegal again.

So you are just incorrect, again. Doesn’t that get tiring?

Um....did you forget what color the slaves that built the pyramids were? Have you heard of indentured servitude? Ever heard of an empire called Rome? Whites HAVE a history of being slaves.
Have you forgotten how the Irish, or German, or Chinese, or Japanese, etc. were treated? White, and other non-blacks have been treated as dirty on mass for the color of their skin, or the lilt of their voice, or the shape of their eyes, really for just about every ridiculous reason man could think of. Blacks have no monopoly on a history of mistreatment of their 'group'. They do seem to be the main target today however.
Do you think ghettos are 100% black? Let me dissuade you of that fallacy...they are not. Many 'white' people have LIVED many if not all of the experiences of people of color, for example, mixed race people (particularly those in the south), adopted white babies in black families, and whites that simply identify more closely with a 'black' community. Not ALL white people are ignorant of the reality and implications of racism. Some are.
Because 'white people' may not have ALL the answers does not mean they should not have a voice at the table discussing racial issues....but they should certainly not be the only voice either....they probably should not be the loudest voice too.

It's not my list, (though it tends to be accurate) But that's exactly why I'm calling for more active moderation on this site. I'm sick of the logical fallacies. When it goes unchecked, you get people who fed up and fire back. So it cuts both ways. It stops QM from making his ad homs and it stops people from making ad homs against him. Win win.

I'm also sick of EVERY GODDAMNED THING being turned into a left v right shitfest. I consider myself to be a left leaning centrist and I think both parties are full of shit (sure I think one party is more full of shit than the other, but that's not really the point) but I think the founding fathers were right to not like parties and this two party system is killing this country.

Quite frankly though, if someone makes some quality posts, you don't earn the right to make some ad homs and otherwise make some shitty posts. if someone ad homs you, you don't get to ad hom them. It's not a tit for tat system.
>> ^Payback:

Oh, believe me, I know his "Kenyawaiian" schitck by heart. As "The Obamanation" isn't here as a participant, I guess I am just drawing too fine a line, but I have yet, in recent memory, to see QM attack someone personally for their views.
However... HE gets attacked, ad hominem, CONSTANTLY.
Also, the others on your list barely contribute BEYOND their political rhetoric. QM comes up with some brilliant, actual-lol-worthy AND NON-POLITICAL comments quite often. I guess that's his saving grace with me, his sense of humour.
>> ^VoodooV:
I'm sure I could probably find one if I looked hard enough, but it's not me that QM does his ad homs to. It's anything associated with the left or especially the man in your avatar pic. Or have you forgotten his favorite nickname for Obama? I have yet to see QM make a rational argument in regards to politics without resorting to a strawman or an ad hom or some form of logical fallacy
>> ^Payback:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^vaire2ube:
BillO or Choggy
starring as Winstonfield_Pennypacker
as Bobknight33
Here on Psychos Of the Sift.
Don't worry kids, Quantum Mushroom is still in there as well, go figure!!

Please don't include QM with that list. Of all of them, QM doesn't argumentum ad hominem. He might be out to lunch, but it's a classy lunch.

where have you been? QM argues Ad homs all the time. It's his bread and butter.

Show me a post where he tries to deflect what you say by attacking you personally. That's what ad Hominem is. Attempting to discredit someone to win an argument, rather than debating their view.
VoodooV: I believe (place anti-rightwing-wacko argument here).
QuantumM: Your feet stink. Look everyone! VoodooV's feet stink!

Oh, believe me, I know his "Kenyawaiian" schitck by heart. As "The Obamanation" isn't here as a participant, I guess I am just drawing too fine a line, but I have yet, in recent memory, to see QM attack someone personally for their views.

However... HE gets attacked, ad hominem, CONSTANTLY.

Also, the others on your list barely contribute BEYOND their political rhetoric. QM comes up with some brilliant, actual-lol-worthy AND NON-POLITICAL comments quite often. I guess that's his saving grace with me, his sense of humour.

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm sure I could probably find one if I looked hard enough, but it's not me that QM does his ad homs to. It's anything associated with the left or especially the man in your avatar pic. Or have you forgotten his favorite nickname for Obama? I have yet to see QM make a rational argument in regards to politics without resorting to a strawman or an ad hom or some form of logical fallacy
>> ^Payback:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^vaire2ube:
BillO or Choggy
starring as Winstonfield_Pennypacker
as Bobknight33
Here on Psychos Of the Sift.
Don't worry kids, Quantum Mushroom is still in there as well, go figure!!

Please don't include QM with that list. Of all of them, QM doesn't argumentum ad hominem. He might be out to lunch, but it's a classy lunch.

where have you been? QM argues Ad homs all the time. It's his bread and butter.

Show me a post where he tries to deflect what you say by attacking you personally. That's what ad Hominem is. Attempting to discredit someone to win an argument, rather than debating their view.
VoodooV: I believe (place anti-rightwing-wacko argument here).
QuantumM: Your feet stink. Look everyone! VoodooV's feet stink!

I'm sure I could probably find one if I looked hard enough, but it's not me that QM does his ad homs to. It's anything associated with the left or especially the man in your avatar pic. Or have you forgotten his favorite nickname for Obama? I have yet to see QM make a rational argument in regards to politics without resorting to a strawman or an ad hom or some form of logical fallacy
>> ^Payback:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^vaire2ube:
BillO or Choggy
starring as Winstonfield_Pennypacker
as Bobknight33
Here on Psychos Of the Sift.
Don't worry kids, Quantum Mushroom is still in there as well, go figure!!

Please don't include QM with that list. Of all of them, QM doesn't argumentum ad hominem. He might be out to lunch, but it's a classy lunch.

where have you been? QM argues Ad homs all the time. It's his bread and butter.

Show me a post where he tries to deflect what you say by attacking you personally. That's what ad Hominem is. Attempting to discredit someone to win an argument, rather than debating their view.
VoodooV: I believe (place anti-rightwing-wacko argument here).
QuantumM: Your feet stink. Look everyone! VoodooV's feet stink!

Why do people always think libertarians are anarchists? Just because I don't belong into either of these bullshit parties doesn't make me not believe in government. I do, however, believe that government is a social contract between you and me, and everyone else, and that contract has to be balanced since we all don't have the same opinion. With that said, I do not believe anything a democrat says, and I sure as hell don't believe anything a republican says. The sad part about these parties is that the only time in the last decade where they actually agreed unanimously at the house was right after 9/11. As for the people (fans), only sheep will agree with their party all the time.

As for size and function of government, this is dependent on the state of the country and the scope of government's responsibility (Federal vs State). If you read Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract (Du Contrat Social), you'd see that an exemplary government is one that focuses service, and not laws. If you have a serious drug problem, then you should get help, not get thrown in jail. Alas, we have an archaic emotional government. Republicans want to limit personal freedom, and democrats want to limit economic freedom. I see no point in either one of those as long as nobody is unfairly treated. That is THE bottom line.

Three things should be considered essential to our future economy:
1) Education
2) Healthcare
3) Science Projects / Environment

I'd vote for anyone who is willing to throw everything else under the bus for reconsideration - regardless of partisanship. The reason I brought the politician's case to pay their own healthcare and get a pay cut is not to save money - You can't consciously deny others free healthcare when you yourself have it. That's what's happening in congress today.

I like your statement about the legalizing and taxing Marijuana; however, Marijuana can't be taxed as most people would grow it at home - I say just legalize it and stop wasting DOJ resources. I don't mind taxing the shit out of oil, use of plastics, tobacco, and alcohol.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?




You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.
No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.
Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.
I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.
It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.
Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.
Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.
Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?





You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.

No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.

Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.

I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.

It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.

Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.

Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.

Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

My mind is clearer now
At last
All too well
I can see
Where we all
Soon will be
If you strip away
The myth
From the man
You will see
Where we all
Soon will be

Jesus!
You've started to believe
The things they say of you
You really do believe
This talk of God is true

And all the good you've done
Will soon be swept away
You've begun to matter more
Than the things you say

Listen Jesus
I don't like what I see
All I ask is that you listen to me
And remember
I've been your right hand man all along
You have set them all on fire
They think they've found the new Messiah
And they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong

I remember when this whole thing began
No talk of God then, we called you a man
And believe me
My admiration for you hasn't died
But every word you say today
Gets twisted 'round some other way
And they'll hurt you if they think you've lied

Nazareth's most famous son
Should have stayed a great unknown
Like his father carving wood
He'd have made good
Tables, chairs and oaken chests
Would have suited Jesus best
He'd have caused nobody harm
No one alarm

Listen Jesus, do you care for your race?
Don't you see we must keep in our place?
We are occupied
Have you forgotten how put down we are?
I am frightened by the crowd
For we are getting much too loud
And they'll crush us if we go too far
If we go too far

Listen Jesus to the warning I give
Please remember that I want us to live
But it's sad to see our chances weakening with ev'ry hour
All your followers are blind
Too much heaven on their minds
It was beautiful, but now it's sour
Yes it's all gone sour
Ah --- ah ah ah --- ah
God Jesus, it's all gone sour

Listen Jesus to the warning I give
Please remember that I want us to live
So come on, come on, listen to me.
Ah --- ah
Come on, listen, listen to me.
Come on and listen to me.
Ah --- ah

What saddens me is that you understand its place, and yet completely miss its significance. The combination of George Michael, 80s pop-ballad, Andrew Ridgley's hair, and Christmas tunes, takes Last Christmas into a different echelon of terrible that justifies its existence. Not so much 'so bad it's good' - I do not overstep - but moreso 'so bad it has earned its place' in music history. Very few manufactured pop tunes have achieved this status, and you have, through shortsighted ignorance and far-too-simplistic logic, downvoted one such tune.

Andrew Ridgley sheds a single tear for you on Christmas Day.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
And I would do it again and again. Wham epitomises the worst of music, taste and society in general. No redeeming qualities...this is going on your permanent record

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
You... you (*choke*) voted down Wham!'s Last Christmas? Sweet Baby Jesus! Have you forgotten the true meaning of Christmas? May Santa have mercy on your soul, scrooge.

And I would do it again and again. Wham epitomises the worst of music, taste and society in general. No redeeming qualities...this is going on your permanent record

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
You... you (*choke*) voted down Wham!'s Last Christmas? Sweet Baby Jesus! Have you forgotten the true meaning of Christmas? May Santa have mercy on your soul, scrooge.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Red House Painters, Have You Forgotten, Songs for a Blue Guitar' to 'Red House Painters, Have You Forgotten, Songs for a Blue Guitar, Amelie' - edited by calvados

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/vanillasky/haveyouforgotten.htm

I can't let you be, cause your beauty won't allow me
wrapped in white sheets,
like an angel from a bedtime story
and shut out what they say,
cause your friends are fucked up anyway
and when they come around,
somehow they feel up and you feel down.

When we were kids, we hated things our parents did
we listened low to Casey Kasem's radio show
that's when friends were nice,
to think of them just makes you feel nice
the smell of grass in spring
and October leaves cover everything.

Have you forgotten how to love yourself? [x2]

I can't believe all the good things that you do for me
sat back in a chair like a princess from a faraway place
nobody's nice, when you're older your heart turns to ice
and shut out what they say;
they're too dumb to mean it anyway

When we were kids, we hated things our sisters did
backyard summer pools and Christmases were beautiful
and the sentiment of coloured mirrored ornaments
and the open drapes
look out on frozen farmhouse landscapes

Have you forgotten how to love yourself? [x6]

>> ^imstellar28:
curiousity,
The argument that you can't find a job without a phone is just nonsense. Especially a minimum wage job typical of someone rising out of poverty. If a poor person walks into a business with a "position available sign" what is stopping them from being hired on the spot? Or have you forgotten that you can walk to places of work, without calling them? Whats stopping them from submitting a resume in person and checking back the next day to arrange an interview? Whats stopping them from checking back the next day or week to see if they got the job? Nothing.
Even if I grant you that its impossible, the reason its impossible is because of the government. If they are hired immediately, why do they need a phone? In order to be hired immediately they could offer a great deal on their labor. Why can't they do this? Why can't they just walk in and offer to work for less than the employer is asking? Why can't they offer such a great deal that the employer would practically have to hire them?
Because they aren't legally allowed to work for the wage they want. Rather than work for only $5 an hour, they can't work at all. Thats not my fault, thats YOUR fault for supporting such policies. You do support minimum wage laws don't you?


I can see that you have no idea what you are talking about. It's not worth continuing this discussion because you have no real world experience with this and that wonderful quality of assuming that you already know everything. Please continue to be angry and ignorant from your armchair.

peggedbea,

If you or others like you want to work and give some of what you have to him, or others like him, do it.

Why should I be your children's father's slave, and how do you have the nerve to ask me to be? That $1000 doesn't come from the "state" or some other magical entity, it comes from your friends, neighbors, coworkers, other people you see when you go out in public. That $1000 in your pocket is $1000 less in someone else's pocket. Why do you think you, or him, deserves it anymore than anyone else?

People might call my position "selfish" but I'm not the one who thinks I deserve anything more than anyone else. That would be the "selfish" position.

curiousity,

The argument that you can't find a job without a phone is just nonsense. Especially a minimum wage job typical of someone rising out of poverty. If a poor person walks into a business with a "position available sign" what is stopping them from being hired on the spot? Or have you forgotten that you can walk to places of work, without calling them? Whats stopping them from submitting a resume in person and checking back the next day to arrange an interview? Whats stopping them from checking back the next day or week to see if they got the job? Nothing. How do you think people get jobs in countries without phones, or how people got jobs before phones were invented? If it truly is no longer possible, how is that progress, and why is your culture (and you) so narrow minded as to be unable to hire someone without a phone? Clearly there is no physical barrier, so any barrier must be mental. If this is what you are arguing, then I have yet another complaint about this disease of a culture we live in.

Even if I grant you that its impossible, another reason its impossible is because of the government. If the applicant is hired immediately, why do they need a phone? In order to be hired immediately they could offer a great deal on their labor. Why can't they do this? Why can't they just walk in and offer to work for less than the employer is asking? Why can't they offer such a great deal that the employer would practically have to hire them?

Because they aren't legally allowed to work for the wage they want. Rather than work for only $5 an hour, they can't work at all. Thats not my fault, thats YOUR fault for supporting such policies. You do support minimum wage laws don't you?