|
|
On October 22 2012 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Racial and gender inequality are two of the biggest issues in America. The Democrats don't do a very good job at addressing them, and in the process of small gains tend to quash genuine progressives, but at least they generally don't try to make things worse. I can understand racial inequality to an extent ('biggest issues' though?), but gender inequality seems very exaggerated. If you elaborate more it would be easier for me to understand where you are coming from.
Unequal pay, unequal representation in government, unequal representation in professional life, endemic rape, domestic abuse--women are far from equal in America (or anywhere, for that matter). Congress hasn't even reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act because they can't agree over pesky details like whether it should be permissible to rape Native Americans.
|
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
|
On October 22 2012 09:26 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Can you prove that "far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level" oppose racism? Name me one Republican at the federal level who doesn't oppose racism. Name me one Democrat too. There aren't any, of course.
The preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act does need overturned. It isn't 1965 and it is only used nowadays to preserve racially gerrymandered districts, the very premise of which undermines the idea of equality. There are powerful institutions today - the same ones who strongly support the act - ready and willing to file lawsuits at the slightest excuse if southern states try to disenfranchise blacks (and these days, Hispanics). Racially gerrymandered districts are not enfranchising.
I'm talking about legislatively. I don't care if politicians are nice people or not so much as I care about their policies. Look at LBJ: he was certainly a repugnant person, but he did a good job at pushing through the Civil Rights Act. And in 2012 there are several states not covered by preclearance fighting battles to make it harder to vote. If anything, the VRA should be expanded, not reduced.
If someone can't manage to get an ID to vote when they cost about $10 and the state will provide you with one free of charge specifically so you can vote, then I don't care if you can't vote because you didn't get an ID. The idea that Voter ID laws make it harder to vote is risible.
|
On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours!
I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys!
|
Answer one complaint, ignore the answer and bring up 3 more.
WP!
EDIT: You complain about Obama wasting his time on women's issues? Romney is the guy spending energy and political capital repealing Roe v Wade and cutting PP funding.
|
On October 22 2012 09:51 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Answer one complaint, ignore the answer and bring up 3 more.
WP!
A little less than half of women identify as pro-life, lots of women aren't being fooled by the fearmongering.
|
It's not really fearmongering. Mitt's site says he wants to repeal Roe vs Wade.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values
"But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade"
I'm not a woman, and I think that's a big deal. I would be even more concerned if I had a vag.
|
On October 22 2012 09:30 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Racial and gender inequality are two of the biggest issues in America. The Democrats don't do a very good job at addressing them, and in the process of small gains tend to quash genuine progressives, but at least they generally don't try to make things worse. I can understand racial inequality to an extent ('biggest issues' though?), but gender inequality seems very exaggerated. If you elaborate more it would be easier for me to understand where you are coming from. Unequal pay, unequal representation in government, unequal representation in professional life, endemic rape, domestic abuse--women are far from equal in America (or anywhere, for that matter). Congress hasn't even reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act because they can't agree over pesky details like whether it should be permissible to rape Native Americans.
Pay is very close to equal. Unequal pay, rape, domestic abuse - these are things that are already illegal.
Unequal representation is an issue, I'm not sure what you want Congress to do about that.
Yeah, I kinda doubt Congress is debating legalizing the rape of Native Americans so unless you can pony up some evidence you just lost all credibility.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 09:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +What the flying hell are you even talking about? I didn't say that I didn't believe him. I'm saying I'm not the one trying to deny the facts laid out by members of my own party. Where in any of my posts have I said that I disregard and disagree with any of Miller's statements? I'm not you, I am well aware of the problems with the Democratic party and I don't attempt to justify any of them. You, on the other hand... You're laboring under the misapprehension that Lofgren is laying out facts, when all he's laying out is his opinion. You're also laboring under the misapprehension that I care or that it matters if you believe Miller or not. He is just a prominent example of how turncoats simply parrot whatever their new masters were saying before they turned. Lofgren is another. They deal in caricatures and stereotypes.
What? Lofgren DOES lay out facts and you'd know that if you actually took the time to read his book. The guy's a credited historian and hardly anything he says in his book is "opinion." This is, once again, you just refusing to accept any facts any way you can find possible. Must be nice trying to hide from reality to reassure yourself of your principles.
No, we weren't. I said, once, that Democrats said what they were doing was out of conviction, and it's a double standard for Democrats (not you, Democrats) to criticize Republicans for doing the same thing for the same stated reason. I have said multiple times that your argument is irrelevant and the voters have already rejected it and are doing so again.
No, you said that Democrats did the same exact thing, as you can see from what I previously quoted you on. While I have no problems criticizing obstructionism of any kind from any party, it seems you do, and saying the Democrats did the same exact thing is a blatantly false accusation which has been proved as incorrect time and time again. Just because you punch me in the face, it would not be the same thing if I beat you to a pulp. I hate obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism period. Never once have I said otherwise. So take your red herrings somewhere else.
Show nested quote +Conservatives are warmongers, as has been shown many times throughout the 900 pages in this thread. Since you have nothing useful to say and prefer boring insults, have a nice loss in the election! I'll enjoy your tears.
I can say the same about you.
|
On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys!
it is an important issue, and definitely worthy of conversation. Why is it wrong to fight against gender inequality while tackling the important issues at hand(economy)? The fact that you don't even consider social issues important enough for a discussion just shows your ignorance.
You talk about looming fiscal catastrophe, yet you support the candidate who has laid out a plan to increase the debt by 8 trillion. You talk about economy being in the shitter, yet you support the candidate who believes in supply side economics. I really, really hope that Romney and the republicans ignore women issues while at the same time using religion and ignorance to pander to a semi-idiotic country!
|
On October 22 2012 10:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! it is an important issue, and definitely worthy of conversation. Why is it wrong to fight against gender inequality while tackling the important issues at hand(economy)? The fact that you don't even consider social issues important enough for a discussion just shows your ignorance. You talk about looming fiscal catastrophe, yet you support the candidate who has laid out a plan to increase the debt by 8 trillion. You talk about economy being in the shitter, yet you support the candidate who believes in supply side economics. I really, really hope that Romney and the republicans ignore women issues while at the same time using religion and ignorance to pander to a semi-idiotic country!
I'm curious, what number would you say gender inequality ranks on voters' list of important issues?
|
On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys!
I don't understand your reasoning. Keeping the status quo takes away nothing from work on the economy and foreign relations.
If Romney takes a moment to revoke civil rights policies, this somehow makes "more room" or something to work on the economy?
On October 22 2012 09:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pay is very close to equal.
72% is not "very close to equal".
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 10:50 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 10:03 biology]major wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! it is an important issue, and definitely worthy of conversation. Why is it wrong to fight against gender inequality while tackling the important issues at hand(economy)? The fact that you don't even consider social issues important enough for a discussion just shows your ignorance. You talk about looming fiscal catastrophe, yet you support the candidate who has laid out a plan to increase the debt by 8 trillion. You talk about economy being in the shitter, yet you support the candidate who believes in supply side economics. I really, really hope that Romney and the republicans ignore women issues while at the same time using religion and ignorance to pander to a semi-idiotic country! I'm curious, what number would you say gender inequality ranks on voters' list of important issues?
It's probably pretty high up there for women, though I believe the 'war on women' has been spun a bit too much. It's more like a war on abortion pre-marital sex which ends up hurting women, a lot. That being said, there's a lot of screwed up things with this country, and all of them deserve attention.
|
On October 22 2012 10:56 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! I don't understand your reasoning. Keeping the status quo takes away nothing from work on the economy and foreign relations. If Romney takes a moment to revoke civil rights policies, this somehow makes "more room" or something to work on the economy?
That's the problem with the whole argument and the whole issue. It's largely an imagined problem beyond the issue of funding contraception and abortion.
EDIT: And just to be clear, what is particularly bothersome is that Obama has made these imaginary issues the centerpiece of his election pitch down the stretch. In fact, does anyone even know what Obama's plan is anymore? He never ever talks about it beyond saying that he wants to raise the top income tax brackets to Clinton-levels.
|
On October 22 2012 10:56 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! I don't understand your reasoning. Keeping the status quo takes away nothing from work on the economy and foreign relations. If Romney takes a moment to revoke civil rights policies, this somehow makes "more room" or something to work on the economy? 72% is not "very close to equal".
72% is not an accurate number. We've discussed this previously on this thread. You need to adjust for things like occupation, hours worked, qualifications etc. When you do that the disparity falls to something like women get paid 5% less, which may or may not be due to discrimination.
|
On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys!
boys? i see what you did there
if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 11:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 10:56 urashimakt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! I don't understand your reasoning. Keeping the status quo takes away nothing from work on the economy and foreign relations. If Romney takes a moment to revoke civil rights policies, this somehow makes "more room" or something to work on the economy? On October 22 2012 09:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pay is very close to equal. 72% is not "very close to equal". 72% is not an accurate number. We've discussed this previously on this thread. You need to adjust for things like occupation, hours worked, qualifications etc. When you do that the disparity falls to something like women get paid 5% less, which may or may not be due to discrimination.
A lot of it is a result of social conditioning though. There are jobs that are typically designated as "womenly" and jobs that are highly touted as realms for men (look at Wall Street). Even hours worked... women are the ones who are expected to be at home and take care of the children, so they may not be able to work as many hours as they'd like. I'm not saying we should fix this through laws though. Just making a point (though I've always been an advocate of paid maternity leave).
|
On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different
....except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies.
|
You talk about looming fiscal catastrophe, yet you support the candidate who has laid out a plan to increase the debt by 8 trillion
After getting criticized because the 5 trillion charge wasn't true, the solution for Obama and his supporters is... up the lie to 8 trillion!
You talk about economy being in the shitter, yet you support the candidate who believes in supply side economics.
Supply side economics = 4.8% unemployment rate.
Obamanomics = 8% unemployment rate.
I really, really hope that Romney and the republicans ignore women issues while at the same time using religion and ignorance to pander to a semi-idiotic country!
And we really, really hope that you continue thinking in this kind of fog! It makes it much easier to beat someone when they operate based on self-serving, idiotic stereotypes about us.
|
On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different
Well, I am a man, so they would already do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
