|
|
On October 22 2012 11:35 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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.
Haha, post of the night right here.
|
On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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.
Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade.
|
On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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.
....except this is what will always happen if Romney has his way. At the very least, a giant step in that direction. How can you even say that with a straight face when you know he wants to repeal roe wade?
|
On October 22 2012 11:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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! Show nested quote + 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. Show nested quote + 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.
actually if you look at the figures
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
you can play a fun little game!
H.W Bush (R) overall increased unemployment
Clinton (D) reduced unemployment for 8 consecutive years
G.W. Bush (R) overall increased unemployment
and barring the huge gains during the crash, Obama (D) has had a huge stretch of reduction of unemployment.
all that you can take away from looking at the figures over the past half a century is that overall presidents havent had a huge effect on unemployment. whether that be because the president cant create jobs or because opposite congressmen always fuck shit up who knows. but in general, unemployment stays between 5 and 7% outside of major crashes.
the last time unemployment went to 10% was during raegan, and it took 6 years for it to get back to what people would consider proper levels. so this constant parroting by the right to both blame obamas economic policy for a crash that happened before his presidency, and to claim this recovery is either his fault or too slow is disingenuous.
specifically on supply side economics there are 2 pretty obvious reasons it doesnt work, and a few more which require a little thinking. the first is in the name, supply side. just because you have the capitol to increase supply doesnt increase demand. if you are selling 1000 products a week, thats how much demand there is and thats that, unable to shift more product you will pocket the tax break and buy a new jet.
secondly, the main purpose of business is NOT to serve more customers or to shift more of a product. its to make money. there is no innate desire for a company to produce more when it has more. they will again just pocket the tax break.
thirdly you have to understand how money actually flows in an economy, it does not flow down to the poor person, else they wouldnt be poor anymore. it flows up to the rich, thats the definition of rich - they have more money they are holding on to. to stimulate the economy you have to inject it to the bottom, to put it through as many people as possible before it comes out the top.
poor people spend at variety of places, be it a shop, or a service like water and housing. this trickles up through suppliers and manufacturers who all need to employ more people to cope with demand. by feeding money to the bottom, jobs are created and perhaps just as importantly, the people who deserve the help are getting it.
by increasing demand you force businesses to employ more people to see a piece of the pie, rather than just handing the pie straight to the business.
|
On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade.
I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades.
|
On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades.
Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are.
wtf is there to get?
|
On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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.
except romney ends roe v wade and you can't abort. that's the point
|
On October 22 2012 11:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:35 Romantic wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Haha, post of the night right here.
On October 22 2012 11:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:35 Romantic wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Haha, post of the night right here.
I have a hard time being sympathetic. I wonder how they'd like being male with absolutely no options post conception, family court biases, and generally being held to much higher standards of responsibility than women if the women choose to urge the court to get on you. Could add on there that pre-conception mens' birth control options are shittier.
The only real downside to being female is having the kid in your uterus for 9 months. But this gives you incredible privilege and everything else is much easier. You have better birth control, you can abort, you can give up for adoption and never see them again (bet a lot of men stuck on child support for kids they don't want would love this one), family courts are biased towards you or can be easily manipulated in your favor, there are many times the amount of sex-based charity dollars available to you, there isn't even any need to inform the father his child exists. Hell, there are even states that allow women to ABANDON NEWBORNS at certain places. No prosecution, no more obligations; kid is a ward of the state now.
But Sandra Fluke, a thirty year old law school student, has a hard time paying for birth control so she should get it subsidized or for free. Rough life. To add to the horror, some people don't want federal funding of abortion providers or think the government shouldn't mandate what is included in insurance coverage. Someone needs to stop this war on women that is going on.
|
On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades.
How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency.
|
On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get?
Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!).
Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned.
That's a tall order for 4 years.
Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion.
The sky is not falling - get over it.
|
Northern Ireland27339 Posts
Returning to the points raised a few pages ago regarding the Republicans in Congress and their obstructionist ways, what is there that Obama can do, if re-elected to prevent filibusters crippling him in the second term?
I'm not making a partisan point here by any means, but as a non-expert on the legislative niceties over in the States, is there anything like a Presidential veto that he can use to get around any filibustering in the Senate?
Also, in poll after poll I've read 'more cooperation between the parties' is frequently cited at the top, or close to the top of the wishlists of independent voters. As somebody who has always been told that the crucial voting bloc is the independent vote in deciding Presidential elections, why is this not being taken on board?
|
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.
No, women on average make between 70% and 80% of what men make. You don't need to adjust to find that number, it's just there. The "5%" number, which I assume was lifted from the top of wikipedia, is one estimate of the unexplained gender gap. This is a difference in average pay that is not accounted for and so is assumed to imply gender discrimination.
The rest of the difference is still chalked up to discrimination, it's just got an explanation. Differences in things like experience. Think about it this way: You may see a woman making only 5% less as an office administrator than her male contemporaries. That looks pretty good doesn't it? But it doesn't indicate anything about discriminatory hiring practices that favor males with equivalently good resumes.
On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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.
Yes. Right now, women are allowed to abort a fetus. I think we should keep it that way. I think wasting time overturning Roe v Wade and legislating away choices based on faith is a mistake. It's one thing I disagree with Romney and the Republican party on. The issue, for you, may be primarily whether government funds this stuff but to the candidate and his party it's whether it's legally allowed. His complete stance on the issue and legislative goals are outlined on his website.
|
On October 22 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get? Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!). Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned. That's a tall order for 4 years. Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion. The sky is not falling - get over it.
Again,
then why campaign on it? Who is doing the pandering? It wouldn't even be brought up if the Republicans didn't mention being against it.
|
On October 22 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get? Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!). Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned. That's a tall order for 4 years. Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion. The sky is not falling - get over it.
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"
Romney has made it clear he will do all that he can to overturn it. If you are pro-choice, you have a very good reason to be against Romney.
Planned Parenthood is not an abortion factory.
STI/STD TESTING AND TREATMENT — 38.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2010
CONTRACEPTION — 33.5 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2010
CANCER SCREENING AND PREVENTION — 14.5 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2010
OTHER WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES — 10.4 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2010
ABORTION SERVICES — 3.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2010
It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to deduce why a woman may not like these services being rolled into general healthcare, especially if she's poor.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WKMXQeltZ-kJ:www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf &hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiSklNjBYY_aXLsaEcMQkOKUEQ2jFL0qW59EM02hmLCaKoDo1mD4_qyEx4opDZulfcCit8KBYGKDYHkdTn97T-V_vH77x_OdZhMi4XxtyjVplcDTiw_TwJ7HHJXUiIT0FozQIoA&sig=AHIEtbTgRfaUhfFJ1ExlFhO6GxzBJEvVxA
|
On October 22 2012 12:08 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get? Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!). Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned. That's a tall order for 4 years. Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion. The sky is not falling - get over it. Again, then why campaign on it? Who is doing the pandering? It wouldn't even be brought up if the Republicans didn't mention being against it.
Derp. Some Republicans are against it. WTF, that doesn't mean it instantly goes away if Romney is elected.
|
On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency.
PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
|
On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
It's not indispensable for YOU.
|
On October 22 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:08 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get? Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!). Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned. That's a tall order for 4 years. Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion. The sky is not falling - get over it. Again, then why campaign on it? Who is doing the pandering? It wouldn't even be brought up if the Republicans didn't mention being against it. Derp. Some Republicans are against it. WTF, that doesn't mean it instantly goes away if Romney is elected.
EXACTLY. It is the republicans pandering to their religious right vote. To say both parties are pandering is ridiculous. It would be a non issue if republicans didn't bring it up.
|
On October 22 2012 12:07 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. No, women on average make between 70% and 80% of what men make. You don't need to adjust to find that number, it's just there. The "5%" number, which I assume was lifted from the top of wikipedia, is one estimate of the unexplained gender gap. This is a difference in average pay that is not accounted for and so is assumed to imply gender discrimination. The rest of the difference is still chalked up to discrimination, it's just got an explanation. Differences in things like experience. Think about it this way: You may see a woman making only 5% less as an office administrator than her male contemporaries. That looks pretty good doesn't it? But it doesn't indicate anything about discriminatory hiring practices that favor males with equivalently good resumes.
Wow, you are really butchering logic here. 70% to 80% on average is a USELESS statistic if you do not adjust it for meaningful, non-discriminatory explanations.
And I see no reason why small differences in pay that could possibly (but may not!) be attributable to discrimination necessitate new laws when discrimination is already illegal. If there's a specific flaw in the current law you can make a case to fix that, but beyond that its just pandering.
|
On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks 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! 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. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
