Obama is a full blown marxist

[jillian]

it was debunked? i sure missed that.

so women who have families and need to take some more time off get paid less. and youre ok with that? them being punished for having families? what about women who dont take extra time off, arent they still getting paid less? no evidence ive seen that shows otherwise. doesnt seem fair to me.

Mommy tracking absolutely happens. But, in the case I was talking about, the one in which the USSC took all the teeth out of the employment discrimination laws dealing with disparate pay, there wasn't an issue of mommy tracking. The sad, pathetic part of the decision is that the woman had worked longer and harder at the tire company than the men who were being paid more than she was. But since the company was able to hide the disparate pay for more than 180 days, she was limited to only 180 days of damages.

(and let's face it, that isn't exactly going to motivate anyone to spend the time and energy needed for a lawsuit... which was the entire point of the Decision made by Bush's Court.)

 

[nomdeplume]

You seem very familiar.

I should, assuming you are a fan of Twain, Voltaire, Kant, Nietzsche, and Aristotle.

I'm STILL waiting for you to post a link that we can read containing your studies.

I gave you the cite. That's all you need. If you do not have access to all the databases which hold the file, it is not my fault.

 

[busara]

ROFLMAO. You seem to think the exact opposite. Men could stop commiting so much crime. They could lose the stocism and visit the doctor more readily. Women could choose mates who are happy to stay home and/or take care of the domestic end of things.

THATS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!! PEOPLE CAN IMPROVE!! i have no idea how you missed that. employers can be more equal in pay, courts more fair depending on who is being tried, people can act more responsible. what you have been saying is that the system is broke, who gives a f***. or youve been denying a problem exists all together. or you are just bad at explaining your views. im not sure anymore

 

[nomdeplume]

THATS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!! PEOPLE CAN IMPROVE!! i have no idea how you missed that. employers can be more equal in pay, courts more fair depending on who is being tried, people can act more responsible. what you have been saying is that the system is broke, who gives a f***. or youve been denying a problem exists all together. or you are just bad at explaining your views. im not sure anymore

You've lsot me with your regression into illogic. You seem to not even understand your own words. The system is not broken. People are broken, and they have all the volition to fix themselves. Whether they do it or not is not congress's business.

 

[Ravi]

I should, assuming you are a fan of Twain, Voltaire, Kant, Nietzsche, and Aristotle.



I gave you the cite. That's all you need. If you do not have access to all the databases which hold the file, it is not my fault.

Of course it isn't your fault. But since you can't produce it, no one here is under any obligation to believe that it is nothing more than a skewed and partisan piece.

Given your asinine statements about men experiencing more violence, I certainly am not taking your word for anything.

 

[busara]

You've lsot me with your regression into illogic. You seem to not even understand your own words. The system is not broken. People are broken, and they have all the volition to fix themselves. Whether they do it or not is not congress's business.

this whole time i have been saying there is this problem in society and it should be fixed. i said the govt probably cant do it best, that it needs to be done by society. you tried to deny the problem, then said no one should do anything because this is how it is. now youre saying the problem is with people (duh) and they should fix it, not congress. you are now saying exactly what i have been. maybe you need a course in reading comprehension, cause apparently you didnt understand anything ive been posting.

 

[nomdeplume]

Of course it isn't your fault. But since you can't produce it, no one here is under any obligation to believe that it is nothing more than a skewed and partisan piece.

Given your asinine statements about men experiencing more violence, I certainly am not taking your word for anything.

Excuse me?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fvvc.txt

Rates of violent crimes (including murders,
rapes, robberies, and assaults)
per 1,000 population
------------------------------------------
Males Females
--------------------------------------------------

1973 67.83 est. 31.35 est.
1974 69.26 est. 31.25 est.
1975 66.67 est. 33.10 est.
1976 65.62 est. 33.25 est.
1977 70.92 est. 32.31 est.
1978 69.84 est. 32.74 est.
1979 69.58 est. 35.28 est.
1980 67.90 est. 32.97 est.
1981 70.75 est. 36.44 est.
1982 66.80 est. 36.84 est.
1983 61.58 est. 32.40 est.
1984 60.49 est. 33.39 est.
1985 59.34 est. 31.56 est.
1986 54.14 est. 30.84 est.
1987 56.70 est. 31.91 est.
1988 54.91 est. 34.34 est.
1989 56.61 est. 31.37 est.
1990 57.42 est. 31.91 est.
1991 64.31 est. 33.39 est.
1992 59.16 37.13
1993 60.60 40.81
1994 59.42 41.48

 

[Ravi]

From your link, do you have anything more current? IMO, more women report crimes now, especially domestic violence and rape.

In 1994 women were about two-thirds as likely as men to be
victims of violence. Of the 10.9 million crimes of violence in
1994, 4.7 million were against women. The rate of victimization
was 43 per 1,000 women about two-thirds the 60 violent
victimizations per 1,000 men.


Twenty years ago women's likelihood of victimization was less
than half that of men. The overall trend indicates that the
rates of victimization for men and women converge -- the rate
for men decreasing and the rate for women remaining relatively
stable or increasing.

 

[nomdeplume]

From your link, do you have anything more current? IMO, more women report crimes now, especially domestic violence and rape.
.

It is irrelevant to the point I made. 20 years of data there; where were the dumbocrats' concerns for mens over victimization? Unless they can entirely wrap that victimization up on a black males face, the fucking racist, sexist frauds are not interested.

 

[Ravi]

It is irrelevant to the point I made. 20 years of data there; where were the dumbocrats' concerns for mens over victimization? Unless they can entirely wrap that victimization up on a black males face, the fucking racist, sexist frauds are not interested.

When men start getting raped and beaten by their spouses at even 1/4 of the rate that women do I'll break out the violin for you.

 

[nomdeplume]

When men start getting raped and beaten by their spouses at even 1/4 of the rate that women do I'll break out the violin for you.

What a coward. Typical dumbocrat. Get debunked by hard, cold facts and then out come with the non-sequiturs and red herrings.

 

[Ravi]

What a coward. Typical dumbocrat. Get debunked by hard, cold facts and then out come with the non-sequiturs and red herrings.

awww....I asked you for more current information. You know, something that isn't twelve years old.

 

[nomdeplume]

awww....I asked you for more current information. You know, something that isn't twelve years old.

As I already fucking explained, I did not need more current data to make my point. And you did more than that, you threw out a anemic non-sequitur because your whole argument was shot to hell and you just can't admit you are fucking wrong.

 

[Ravi]

As I already fucking explained, I did not need more current data to make my point. And you did more than that, you threw out a anemic non-sequitur because your whole argument was shot to hell and you just can't admit you are fucking wrong.

Of course it matters, and I already explained why. Women are now more apt to report domestic violence and rape now than they were twelve years ago. That could also be why your data showed that violence against women was increasing but not against men. But keep pretending that old data is valid twelve years after the fact. Why don't you post something from the 1800's?

 

[nomdeplume]

Of course it matters, and I already explained why. Women are now more apt to report domestic violence and rape now than they were twelve years ago. That could also be why your data showed that violence against women was increasing but not against men. But keep pretending that old data is valid twelve years after the fact. Why don't you post something from the 1800's?

Why don't you go fuckng find it yourself? The modern numbers are irrelevant to the point I made. Are you really this fucking stupid or are you just trying to derail the thread? How many times do I have to explain it to you? You make it sound like women in 1994 ran around wearing prairie dresses or some shit. Get a clue.

 

[Ravi]

Why don't you go fuckng find it yourself? The modern numbers are irrelevant to the point I made. Are you really this fucking stupid or are you just trying to derail the thread? How many times do I have to explain it to you? You make it sound like women in 1994 ran around wearing prairie dresses or some shit. Get a clue.

You are correct. At least through 2005 men are slightly more apt than women to be the victims of violent crime in the US, according to the Bureau of Justice. Male victims have enjoyed a steeper decline.

Now, can you tell me which gender is more apt to commit violent crime?

 

[nomdeplume]

You are correct. At least through 2005 men are slightly more apt than women to be the victims of violent crime in the US, according to the Bureau of Justice. Male victims have enjoyed a steeper decline.

Now, can you tell me which gender is more apt to commit violent crime?

Non-sequitur #970217402174023740291740129347091274092374093


But you might read this article for your own edification Mark Rosenthal -- Men Railroaded by Corrupt Family Violence Research . I doubt you have concern for the blatant sexism against men in this country, but the truth is out there -- and the elite liberals loathe it, while the liberal sheeple are too stupid to parse it.

 

[Ravi]

Non-sequitur #970217402174023740291740129347091274092374093


But you might read this article for your own edification Mark Rosenthal -- Men Railroaded by Corrupt Family Violence Research . I doubt you have concern for the blatant sexism against men in this country, but the truth is out there -- and the elite liberals loathe it, while the liberal sheeple are too stupid to parse it.

Of course.

 

[nomdeplume]

Of course.

This one is a bit more erudite and expansive:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

I include it because you no doubt think the evil white man must be lieing to you, as most of what he says contradicts the liberal psychosis in your head masquerading for reality, your own little blue-tinted maya.

 

[Ravi]

This one is a bit more erudite and expansive:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

I include it because you no doubt think the evil white man must be lieing to you, as most of what he says contradicts the liberal psychosis in your head masquerading for reality, your own little blue-tinted maya.

Sorry, something that has in it's title the Feminist State is not credible. While I have no doubt women can commit domestic violence against men, your attitude of attacking and using strawmen (the evil white man, for example, and the liberal psychosis in your head) make you nothing more than a non-credible asshole.