US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2247

On August 28 2015 06:23 KwarK wrote:

ISIS seek to control women's bodies. So do the Republican party. Do you respect the ISIS stance on female liberty?

On August 28 2015 06:23 KwarK wrote:

ISIS seek to control women's bodies. So do the Republican party. Do you respect the ISIS stance on female liberty?

On August 28 2015 06:24 Plansix wrote:

They just want government to be small enough to fit in the bedroom and women's doctor's office.

On August 28 2015 06:19 Sermokala wrote:
Calling your opponents terrorists for not agreeing with (in their view) murder is fucking shameless. At least have the dignity to respect people's views you don't agree with.

On the same page where someone posts a video complaining about republican wedges when democrats raise hell over the other side only having a problem with one thing pp does and calling it a war on women.

On August 28 2015 06:29 Sermokala wrote:

The Republican party doesn't want to control women's bodies they believe the fetus has the right to live. If you don't agree with someone's view you don't get the right to twist their views. You don't see republicans calling dems pro baby murder or anti baby rights.

On August 28 2015 06:29 Sermokala wrote:

The Republican party doesn't want to control women's bodies they believe the fetus has the right to live. If you don't agree with someone's view you don't get the right to twist their views. You don't see republicans calling dems pro baby murder or anti baby rights.

On August 28 2015 06:33 Sermokala wrote:

Having a problem with abortion doesn't make you anti women's health. Pp does more then 90% of its services that have no political objections but you take away abortions and suddenly they can't function and need to be shut down?

On August 28 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:

No, they only want to force women to have the child of the person that raped them. That is a huge upgrade. So much better.

Maybe they should just not talk about abortion and they won't get angry response from women who are tried of men trying to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies.

On August 28 2015 06:37 Gorsameth wrote:

The problem is they cannot avoid the subject.
The fact that their position on it is known will mean that people will keep calling them out on it even if they were to try and avoid it.

WASHINGTON -- McDonald's, Burger King and every other company that relies on a franchise business model just suffered the legal setback they've been fearing for years.

The National Labor Relations Board ruled on Thursday that Browning Ferris Industries, a waste management company, qualifies as a "joint employer" alongside one of its subcontractors. The decision effectively loosens the standards for who can be considered a worker's boss under labor law, and its impact will be felt in any industry that relies on franchising or outsourcing work. McDonald's, for instance, could now find itself forced to sit at the bargaining table with workers employed by a franchisee managing one of its restaurants.

That's a big deal. In the case of McDonald's, roughly 90 percent of its locations are actually run by franchisees, who are typically considered the workers' employers. One of the main reasons companies choose to franchise or to outsource work to staffing agencies is to shift workplace responsibilities onto someone else. But if a fast-food brand or a hotel chain can be deemed a "joint employer" along with the smaller company, it can be dragged into labor disputes and negotiations that it conveniently wouldn't have to worry about otherwise. In theory, such a precedent could even make it easier for workers to unionize as employees under the larger parent company.

The Democratic-majority board, whose members were appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled 3-2 along partisan lines, with the two Republicans dissenting.

In their decision, the Democratic members wrote that parent companies shouldn't be absolved of their obligations to workers at the bottom of the contracting chain.

On August 28 2015 07:06 Introvert wrote:
This is always the amusing part of politics. No one on your side every says anything ridiculous or extreme, cause it's true when X says it! LOL. TIL the entirety of women's issues is abortion.

On August 28 2015 07:12 Ghostcom wrote:
I think it is time for everyone on this page to go and read the mod note, then go to page one, and then stop violating rules 1-5. It has been going downhill for a long time in this thread, but debate is literally impossible now and it has become very very very frustrating to read + Show Spoiler +

EDIT: Damn you CCstealthblue - everyone minus CCstealthblue.

On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
Why are you guys being this purposefully obtuse?

The perspective from the Republican (religious right) standpoint is that life (and thus the right to life) begins at conception. A bunch of old white men did not huddle together and say " What's the best way we can subjugate women today? Oh, I know, we'll make them carry their pregnancies to term!" Rather, a group of (mostly old, white) religious men and women decided that since humans have souls, any relatively independent human life must also have a soul, and that ending the life of anything with a soul is a horrible act.

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.

In my opinion you guys are no better than some country hicks raving about godless communist liberals trying to take away their guns. Hyperbole and strawmanning have no place in discussion of this sort and you know better than this

On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
Why are you guys being this purposefully obtuse?

The perspective from the Republican (religious right) standpoint is that life (and thus the right to life) begins at conception. A bunch of old white men did not huddle together and say " What's the best way we can subjugate women today? Oh, I know, we'll make them carry their pregnancies to term!" Rather, a group of (mostly old, white) religious men and women decided that since humans have souls, any relatively independent human life must also have a soul, and that ending the life of anything with a soul is a horrible act.

I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.

In my opinion you guys are no better than some country hicks raving about godless communist liberals trying to take away their guns. Hyperbole and strawmanning have no place in discussion of this sort and you know better than this

On August 28 2015 07:23 zlefin wrote:

well, I've made threads in website feedback pushing for higher moderation standards in this thread and in general discussion, but there has not been much interest, so I expect we're just too reasonable for most people

On August 28 2015 07:50 Ghostcom wrote:


Well, I've been debating about making that post for weeks as I'm largely against backseat moderating and would much rather leave that stuff to the mods, but frankly they have been, and are, failing in this thread - despite the very nice start it had.