In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
PHILADELPHIA -- PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The Democratic bastion of Philadelphia has elected a Whig to public office.
Voters chose Robert "Heshy" Bucholz (BUCK'-holtz), a member of the Modern Whig party, to be an election judge in the Rhawnhurst section of the city.
Bucholz believes he may be the first Whig to win at the ballot box in Philadelphia in nearly 160 years. Democrats presently outnumber Republicans by a more than 6-to-1 margin in Philadelphia.
Bucholz beat his Democratic opponent 36-24 on Tuesday. As election judge, he's responsible for overseeing equipment and procedures at the polls.
Bucholz told The Associated Press on Thursday that Whigs represent a sensible middle path between Democrats and Republicans.
Four U.S. presidents have been Whigs. The party largely disappeared in the 20th century, but was revived in 2007.
yeah, finance into more finance into more finance, all of which is a big rent-seeking machine which taxes the economy circumvents the state monopoly on the printing of money. the precession of the simulacra. we're way past Arrighi's signal crisis and we're living through the terminal crisis as we speak
The state doesn't have a monopoly on printing money. That's not the monetary system we have, and it has good and bad trade-offs.
um.
who else gets to print money? I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to start issuing your own currency.
don't tell me the fed is not part of the state. the fed is part of the state
Banks are allowed to create money in form of fiat money. This accounts for far more than what the Fed is printing.
They're destroyed as soon as there are transactions between banks, because it force them to use central money. Their capacity to create scriptural money is directly linked to the supply of central money and to the tendency of people to use central money.
derivative trades let banks create credit, which has money like qualities, without the need for central bank money. but yes, the overall supply of central bank money controls credit, alternating between making it more money-like and less-money like.
Yes, and that's exactly what sam was saying since the beginning, so the whole discussion has no sense
"One party in one house of Congress should not stand in the way of millions of Americans who want to go to work each day and simply be judged by the job they do," the President said in a statement. "Now is the time to end this kind of discrimination in the workplace, not enable it. I urge the House Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor for a vote and send it to my desk so I can sign it into law."
cnn I'd encourage Boehner to oppose it just to continue hearing these gems in the opposition's rhetoric. If not for one party in one house of Congress we'd be walking on sunshine.
Boehner would never let that bill come up for a vote because it would be the most toxic vote they take in the entire congress. His caucus cant vote for it because the base would kill them but they cant vote against it because I am just taking a guess but I would suspect it has more then a 60% approval minimum and those aren't typically tides you want to vote against.
The strangest thing to me about the American democratic process is the huge number of ways opponents of a given measure can simply prevent it being voted on. Parliament striking down a bill on lgbt rights is one thing, losing is part of democracy and there is really no reason to believe that a gop controlled house would vote FOR a measure concerning lgbt rights and that's sadly the way it is. But what bothers me is that there is probably not even going to be a vote. The American system gives the majority leader of the house the ability to prevent a vote, it gives any senator the right to prevent a vote at will. And as far as I understand it the new filibuster rules allows them to do so passively without actually taking any action at all. Further the chairman of whatever committee prepared the bill can _also_ refuse to bring it to the floor. In short the system makes it very easy to simply lock huge groups out of the democratic process, their cases not even heard in parliament for fear that maybe, just maybe, people will vote the wrong way.
On November 08 2013 07:38 Adreme wrote: Boehner would never let that bill come up for a vote because it would be the most toxic vote they take in the entire congress. His caucus cant vote for it because the base would kill them but they cant vote against it because I am just taking a guess but I would suspect it has more then a 60% approval minimum and those aren't typically tides you want to vote against.
You're spot on. "However, when we use national polls to estimate opinion by state, we find that majorities in all 50 states support ENDA-like legislation (note that in 1996, majorities in only 36 states supported ENDA). Today, public support ranges from a low of 63 percent in Mississippi to a high of 81 percent in Massachusetts. "
On November 08 2013 07:29 BallinWitStalin wrote: Or, you know, you could hope congress solves an issue that probably affects a fair number of people's lives in a negative way....
I can feel the hand wringing. It's as if a million hopeful people are just waiting for Congress to send down from on high the bill the fixes discrimination once and for all!
A bill they haven't read but that has a very good name on it. Just read the title. You don't really need to know what it does. You just know its going to legislate discrimination out of existence. It'll be just like hate crime legislation, that got solved by an act of Congress. It'll be just like electing a Black man president, that ended racism.
Effective July 8, 2013, the U.S. Department of the Interior adopted final rules that require the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to give preference to Indian-owned or -controlled businesses in matters of procurement. The rules are the long-awaited last step in implementing the Buy Indian Act, a law signed on June 25, 1910. Although the act has been on the books since then, it was unenforceable until now because there were no rules adopted for implementing it. Rule writing didn’t begin in earnest until 1982 and then proceeded in fits and starts over the ensuing 30 years. It is now, at long last, completed.
On November 08 2013 07:29 BallinWitStalin wrote: Or, you know, you could hope congress solves an issue that probably affects a fair number of people's lives in a negative way....
I can feel the hand wringing. It's as if a million hopeful people are just waiting for Congress to send down from on high the bill the fixes discrimination once and for all!
A bill they haven't read but that has a very good name on it. Just read the title. You don't really need to know what it does. You just know its going to legislate discrimination out of existence. It'll be just like hate crime legislation, that got solved by an act of Congress. It'll be just like electing a Black man president, that ended racism.
Read past the bill's title.
What do you find objectionable in the bill? I haven't read it, I'm honestly curious.
Effective July 8, 2013, the U.S. Department of the Interior adopted final rules that require the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to give preference to Indian-owned or -controlled businesses in matters of procurement. The rules are the long-awaited last step in implementing the Buy Indian Act, a law signed on June 25, 1910. Although the act has been on the books since then, it was unenforceable until now because there were no rules adopted for implementing it. Rule writing didn’t begin in earnest until 1982 and then proceeded in fits and starts over the ensuing 30 years. It is now, at long last, completed.
On November 08 2013 07:29 BallinWitStalin wrote: Or, you know, you could hope congress solves an issue that probably affects a fair number of people's lives in a negative way....
I can feel the hand wringing. It's as if a million hopeful people are just waiting for Congress to send down from on high the bill the fixes discrimination once and for all!
A bill they haven't read but that has a very good name on it. Just read the title. You don't really need to know what it does. You just know its going to legislate discrimination out of existence. It'll be just like hate crime legislation, that got solved by an act of Congress. It'll be just like electing a Black man president, that ended racism.
Read past the bill's title.
What do you find objectionable in the bill? I haven't read it, I'm honestly curious.
The legal wordings and areas for interpretation will have the effect of increasing frivolous lawsuits. The danger of legal liability for hiring LGBT employees will discourage their hiring in a clandestine manner. The lengths to which you have to cover you own ass to avoid lawsuit is too much.
Punishment culture, not anti-discrimination culture. I wouldn't mind seeing another one genuinely aimed at fairness, as advertised. I want to see employment for everbody increase, and misguided efforts that will hurt the very groups it tries to protect is a step back.
(a) EMPLOYER PRACTICES —It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any in- dividual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the indi- vidual, because of such individual’s actual or per- ceived sexual orientation or gender identity; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or applicants for employment of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any indi- vidual of employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual ori- entation or gender identity.
Powers given to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Love 'em.
On November 08 2013 07:29 BallinWitStalin wrote: Or, you know, you could hope congress solves an issue that probably affects a fair number of people's lives in a negative way....
I can feel the hand wringing. It's as if a million hopeful people are just waiting for Congress to send down from on high the bill the fixes discrimination once and for all!
A bill they haven't read but that has a very good name on it. Just read the title. You don't really need to know what it does. You just know its going to legislate discrimination out of existence. It'll be just like hate crime legislation, that got solved by an act of Congress. It'll be just like electing a Black man president, that ended racism.
Read past the bill's title.
What do you find objectionable in the bill? I haven't read it, I'm honestly curious.
The legal wordings and areas for interpretation will have the effect of increasing frivolous lawsuits. The danger of legal liability for hiring LGBT employees will discourage their hiring in a clandestine manner.
Is it even legal to ask a (future) employee what his/her sexual orientation is? O.o
I mean at the moment such a law would be applied, someone would obviously already be hired, so why would it keep people away from jobs?
On November 08 2013 07:29 BallinWitStalin wrote: Or, you know, you could hope congress solves an issue that probably affects a fair number of people's lives in a negative way....
I can feel the hand wringing. It's as if a million hopeful people are just waiting for Congress to send down from on high the bill the fixes discrimination once and for all!
A bill they haven't read but that has a very good name on it. Just read the title. You don't really need to know what it does. You just know its going to legislate discrimination out of existence. It'll be just like hate crime legislation, that got solved by an act of Congress. It'll be just like electing a Black man president, that ended racism.
Read past the bill's title.
What do you find objectionable in the bill? I haven't read it, I'm honestly curious.
The legal wordings and areas for interpretation will have the effect of increasing frivolous lawsuits. The danger of legal liability for hiring LGBT employees will discourage their hiring in a clandestine manner. The lengths to which you have to cover you own ass to avoid lawsuit is too much.
Punishment culture, not anti-discrimination culture. I wouldn't mind seeing another one genuinely aimed at fairness, as advertised. I want to see employment for everbody increase, and misguided efforts that will hurt the very groups it tries to protect is a step back.
It's too bad that the implementation of your neoliberal free-market ideology is dooming the world to 10%+ unemployment and rising into the long-term future.
A former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush on Thursday urged the House of Representatives to take up and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would bar discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Politico published an opinion column by Ari Fleischer Thursday afternoon, shortly after the Senate approved the legislation by a bipartisan margin, 64 to 32. Ten Republican Senators joined Democrats to pass the bill.
"Allowing people to be successful in their workplaces is an essential piece of individual opportunity and liberty," Fleischer wrote. "Working for a living is one of America’s freedoms. It’s a virtue to be encouraged — and supporting it is important to the future of the Republican Party. In an era in which the government often punishes hard work and individual success, this bill encourages it.
"At its core, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is about individual liberty," he continued. "All employees should be treated the same and be judged on their job performance. No one should receive special treatment, and no one should be fired because of their sexual orientation."
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has signaled he won't bring the bill for a vote.
On November 08 2013 07:29 BallinWitStalin wrote: Or, you know, you could hope congress solves an issue that probably affects a fair number of people's lives in a negative way....
I can feel the hand wringing. It's as if a million hopeful people are just waiting for Congress to send down from on high the bill the fixes discrimination once and for all!
A bill they haven't read but that has a very good name on it. Just read the title. You don't really need to know what it does. You just know its going to legislate discrimination out of existence. It'll be just like hate crime legislation, that got solved by an act of Congress. It'll be just like electing a Black man president, that ended racism.
Read past the bill's title.
What do you find objectionable in the bill? I haven't read it, I'm honestly curious.
The legal wordings and areas for interpretation will have the effect of increasing frivolous lawsuits. The danger of legal liability for hiring LGBT employees will discourage their hiring in a clandestine manner. The lengths to which you have to cover you own ass to avoid lawsuit is too much.
Punishment culture, not anti-discrimination culture. I wouldn't mind seeing another one genuinely aimed at fairness, as advertised. I want to see employment for everbody increase, and misguided efforts that will hurt the very groups it tries to protect is a step back.
It's too bad that the implementation of your neoliberal free-market ideology is dooming the world to 10%+ unemployment and rising into the long-term future.
Yes, neoliberal free-market ideology has overtaken the world. Obama's a big subscriber.
Now go on back to answering every argument with straw men.
On November 01 2013 17:03 IgnE wrote: Why doesn't your graph go past 2008?
On November 01 2013 13:11 Danglars wrote:
On November 01 2013 09:34 IgnE wrote: The tea party is a backwards, racist, bigoted party.
And we've been hearing that assault from backwards, bigoted men and women.
There are just as many Obama supporters now as there are Tea Party supporters according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Scary for some on the left. They expected the lambasting to be narrowly applicable to the country, but it only underscores a serious ideological divide. An ideological divide only sparingly and grudgingly admitted.
Their power will erode as it becomes more and more apparent to a new generation of how very little the government can organize or do right.
The tea party can be backwards, racist, and bigoted regardless of Obama's merits or demerits.
Sometimes I get the feeling that you conservatives live enclosed in homogeneous communities where you can say things like "I don't see color" or "the birthers have political grievances with Obama, it has nothing to do with race or skin color" because you never interact with minority communities. Oh that's right, the suburbs.
I admit and perhaps you see a human level, where some of Obama's merits are ignored by tea party members and supporters. In fact, Michelle Obama may mean the very best in combating obesity and may herself enjoy gardening as well. Your feelings aside (and if you're intellectually honest, I have no doubt that they'll follow and change), it is a community deeply concerned with government involvement in the ordinary citizen's life and what its intentions are for control and spending. Obama preached a new brand of government, new hope and change, and governed in a way that threw out the center and plunged leftward. The Tea Party sees what has been lost in the push for greater government responsibility as greater than what has been gained. The debate rages on.
We do with the kooks what most everyone does. They're rejected and ignored. We deal with the far fetched insults the same way. The left plays make believe with their opponents, surely believing that anybody who knew the plight of the poor could disagree with them in any way. Balkanize if you want--blacks have been doing very poorly under Obama. Yet, disagree at your peril for you will soon be labeled an Uncle Tom (Clarence Thomas for one). Drag out more sorry lines from the 70s and before trying to stratify America as an uncaring rich class and a destitute one. Democratic control means just one thing for communities: an increase in poverty and crime and a decrease in overall wealth and prosperity.
I think you misinterpreted me. Perhaps I should have said that the Tea Part is backwards, racist, and bigoted even though Obama is an unprincipled scumbag who murders people via the air by presidential fiat and signs off on a system that has abolished the last vestiges of privacy.
I concur that preventing things from coming to a vote is problematic. I think we should have some constitutional changes to force everything, or most things at least, to come to the floor for an up or down vote at some point.
EPT
