Obama is a full blown marxist

[nomdeplume]

Sorry, something that has in it's title the Feminist State is not credible.

Ya, cause sexist feminist organizations that lobby the goverment do not constitute a "state". Mmhhm. What a flippant way to dismiss tons of good information. But that's the every day existence for the moronic liberal. Thanks for the demonstration.

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)

The fromer was saracasm, the latter was assumptive, border line ad hominem. Neither were strawmen. Don't use words you do not understand. It tends to annoy those of us whom do understand English.

make you nothing more than a non-credible asshole.

It's a good thing I didn't write the study then, eh?

 

[busara]

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.

are you completely unable to write a post without insulting somebody? the more you post, the more convinced i am that you are an immature, bigoted, petty person, and as such cant take anything you say seriously. work on the anger issues

 

[nomdeplume]

are you completely unable to write a post without insulting somebody? the more you post, the more convinced i am that you are an immature, bigoted, petty person, and as such cant take anything you say seriously. work on the anger issues

I have no patience for liars or morons. I don't give a flying fuck what you take seriously, which you must know by now. You are just preaching to the "he kicks my ass every time I pathetically try to debate him, too" crowd. Sing it, brothah! Take your innocuous jibes and go hide in cowardry. One less idiot to debunk. I won't complain.

 

[busara]

I have no patience for liars or morons. I don't give a flying fuck what you take seriously, which you must know by now. You are just preaching to the "he kicks my ass every time I pathetically try to debate him, too" crowd. Sing it, brothah! Take your innocuous jibes and go hide in cowardry. One less idiot to debunk. I won't complain.

did you forget how our little debate went? you were trying to prove me wrong before you agreed with what i had been saying. you either changed your opinion, werent capable of accurately expressing your views, unable to accurately read what i was clearly stating, or had no idea what your point was. none of those look good for you. if anyone is living in a fantasy world, it is you. but i realize there is no point in discussing anything with you. your bias has completely clouded your judgement. you are the perfect propaganda vessel for the far right. congratulations, you no longer need to use your reasoning ability.

 

[Ravi]

I have no patience for liars or morons. I don't give a flying fuck what you take seriously, which you must know by now. You are just preaching to the "he kicks my ass every time I pathetically try to debate him, too" crowd. Sing it, brothah! Take your innocuous jibes and go hide in cowardry. One less idiot to debunk. I won't complain.

Is that what you tell your wife before you smack her?

 

[nomdeplume]

did you forget how our little debate went? you were trying to prove me wrong before you agreed with what i had been saying. you either changed your opinion, werent capable of accurately expressing your views, unable to accurately read what i was clearly stating, or had no idea what your point was. none of those look good for you. if anyone is living in a fantasy world, it is you. but i realize there is no point in discussing anything with you. your bias has completely clouded your judgement. you are the perfect propaganda vessel for the far right. congratulations, you no longer need to use your reasoning ability.

I'm not sure who you think you are kidding. Anyone can read through the thread and see my obvious and unchanging opinion. My posts go further than just detailing the mythical "wage gap", and, shock and horror, actually harken back to the main topic of the god damn thread, Obama's apparent "marxism". This isn't unique to Obama, it's a bullshit racist, sexist scam the dumbocrats have been using for half a century now.

 

[nomdeplume]

Is that what you tell your wife before you smack her?

What a zinging rejoinder. I'm crushed, really. :white_flag:

 

[busara]

I'm not sure who you think you are kidding. Anyone can read through the thread and see my obvious and unchanging opinion. My posts go further than just detailing the mythical "wage gap", and, shock and horror, actually harken back to the main topic of the god damn thread, Obama's apparent "marxism". This isn't unique to Obama, it's a bullshit racist, sexist scam the dumbocrats have been using for half a century now.

yeah, your position was that there is no wage imbalance (except for married women with kids, which is what i was saying needs to change), that the whole thing is a liberal scam, and that nothing should be done about it because it is reality (while i said it is a problem with society and should be changed at that level). maybe you meant only congress shouldnt interfere, and i said that this legislation probably wouldnt fix the problem. do i need to write this in crayon? for someone who pretends to be more intelligent than everyone else you sure cant grasp simple things.

do you even know what marxism is? youre not gonna scare anyone just by saying the term.

 

[nomdeplume]

yeah, your position was that there is no wage imbalance (except for married women with kids, which is what i was saying needs to change),

My position was that, when properly controlled, there is no wage gap between men and women.

that the whole thing is a liberal scam, and that nothing should be done about it because it is reality (while i said it is a problem with society and should be changed at that level).

That's right. The whole issue is a canard. I said the way to fix the "problem" is for people to make different choices. I level the responsibility at the indvidual; you talk of this vague "society". Do you know how broad of a term "society" is? The entire human population can be considered a "society".

maybe you meant only congress shouldnt interfere, and i said that this legislation probably wouldnt fix the problem.

Legislation wouldn't only "not work", it would merely cause more problems.

do i need to write this in crayon? for someone who pretends to be more intelligent than everyone else you sure cant grasp simple things.

/sigh Awesome. So we agree on something. Why do you keep going on about this shit?

do you even know what marxism is? youre not gonna scare anyone just by saying the term.

I don't think it is Marxism specifically, which is why when I used the word I put it in quotes. It's more of a brand of lie-filled populism the dumbocrats have patented and dangle in front of sexist(or ignorant) women and racist(or ignorant) minorities. However, this does have a very distinct "noble lie" element to it, which has been extolled by many proponents of Marxism.

 

[busara]

you obviously dont understand what i was saying. your info for 'when controlled' showed that single women w/o children make the same as men (regardless of whether or not they themselves are married or have kids). THAT is the imbalance that needs to be corrected! understand? your 'control' only shows where the imballance is. that married women with kids are discriminated against in the form of their pay. i keep saying that it needs to be fixed on a societal level. obviously that means american society. still too complex? american people. so they dont discriminate, so they have no prejudices.

and to say that legislation would only cause more problems, well, i disagree with that. sometimes that is the case. others not. a fully laissez faire economy will fail miserably, but im sure you disagree with that. but that is one im not gonna debate with you, as i know it would go nowhere

 

[Annie]

you obviously dont understand what i was saying. your info for 'when controlled' showed that single women w/o children make the same as men (regardless of whether or not they themselves are married or have kids). THAT is the imbalance that needs to be corrected! understand? your 'control' only shows where the imballance is. that married women with kids are discriminated against in the form of their pay. i keep saying that it needs to be fixed on a societal level. obviously that means american society. still too complex? american people. so they dont discriminate, so they have no prejudices.

and to say that legislation would only cause more problems, well, i disagree with that. sometimes that is the case. others not. a fully laissez faire economy will fail miserably, but im sure you disagree with that. but that is one im not gonna debate with you, as i know it would go nowhere

Are you saying a woman that has worked 15 years in total, say with perhaps two five year gaps, make the same as a male with 15 years consecutive experience? In all likelihood, that woman worked for several companies, but even if the same, there would be retraining and other expenses involved.

Consider teaching, if you leave for more than a year, when you reapply for a position say after 5 years, your 'previous years' are reduced by a certain percentage. Why? It's in the interests of the schools and students to have current best practices kept up to date.

 

[busara]

Are you saying a woman that has worked 15 years in total, say with perhaps two five year gaps, make the same as a male with 15 years consecutive experience? In all likelihood, that woman worked for several companies, but even if the same, there would be retraining and other expenses involved.

Consider teaching, if you leave for more than a year, when you reapply for a position say after 5 years, your 'previous years' are reduced by a certain percentage. Why? It's in the interests of the schools and students to have current best practices kept up to date.

can you show that this is the only reason for the wage difference?

 

[nomdeplume]

you obviously dont understand what i was saying. your info for 'when controlled' showed that single women w/o children make the same as men (regardless of whether or not they themselves are married or have kids). THAT is the imbalance that needs to be corrected!

What needs to be corrected: is it personal choice, or just the consequences thereof? How ridiculous. Women and men get punished AND rewarded for whatever choices they make in life. If you want a bigger piece of the domestic pie, which many women with children freely choose to do, you will lose out on life outside of the domicile.

 

[Annie]

can you show that this is the only reason for the wage difference?

I believe you were implying that it wasn't 'right'?

 

[jillian]

What needs to be corrected: is it personal choice, or just the consequences thereof? How ridiculous. Women and men get punished AND rewarded for whatever choices they make in life. If you want a bigger piece of the domestic pie, which many women with children freely choose to do, you will lose out on life outside of the domocile.

Absurd..... disparity in pay doesn't exist simply with respect to mommy tracked women. Is there some reason you choose to ignore facts like those set forth in Ledbetter? (You have heard of Ledbetter, right?)

Here...let me help.... no mommy tracking for Ms Ledbetter...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf

And now the repubs killed the bill that was supposed to correct that insane decision.

I guess it will have to wait til after January 20, 2009.

 

[busara]

What needs to be corrected: is it personal choice, or just the consequences thereof? How ridiculous. Women and men get punished AND rewarded for whatever choices they make in life. If you want a bigger piece of the domestic pie, which many women with children freely choose to do, you will lose out on life outside of the domicile.

yes, choices have consequences. i dont feel it is right for women to make less simply for having a family, which seems to be the case. do men make less for having a family? doesnt seem that way. raising children is a necesssity for this country to continue, and women are being punished for doing this necessity while men arent. if you think there is nothing wrong with that, then fine. but i do

 

[Annie]

yes, choices have consequences. i dont feel it is right for women to make less simply for having a family, which seems to be the case. do men make less for having a family? doesnt seem that way. raising children is a necesssity for this country to continue, and women are being punished for doing this necessity while men arent. if you think there is nothing wrong with that, then fine. but i do

I'd agree that if a woman's work record was the same in time and productivity, with reasonable time, (6 weeks seems the norm), for maternity/adoption/family emergency, pay discrepancy would seem discriminatory. My problem with Ledbetter is the onus put on employers to prove something basically impossible to prove. Thus, they automatically lose. Seems like a version of the Canadian Kangaroo courts on 'human rights.' To be accused is to be guilty.

 

[busara]

I'd agree that if a woman's work record was the same in time and productivity, with reasonable time, (6 weeks seems the norm), for maternity/adoption/family emergency, pay discrepancy would seem discriminatory. My problem with Ledbetter is the onus put on employers to prove something basically impossible to prove. Thus, they automatically lose. Seems like a version of the Canadian Kangaroo courts on 'human rights.' To be accused is to be guilty.

i agree, it is very hard to define. that is why putting forth legislation to correct the problem will likely not work. the intention is good, but the law wont help. falls on people to do the proper thing themselves, instead of waiting for govt to lead the way

 

[jillian]

I'd agree that if a woman's work record was the same in time and productivity, with reasonable time, (6 weeks seems the norm), for maternity/adoption/family emergency, pay discrepancy would seem discriminatory. My problem with Ledbetter is the onus put on employers to prove something basically impossible to prove. Thus, they automatically lose. Seems like a version of the Canadian Kangaroo courts on 'human rights.' To be accused is to be guilty.

What are you talking about Kathianne? What Ledbetter does is reward employers if they can use subterfuge and prevent the person subjected to the pay disparity from finding out about it until after 180 days are up.

The law was ALWAYS that it was from when one knew or should have known of the disparity.

Ledbetter puts no onus on employers.

 

[nomdeplume]

yes, choices have consequences. i dont feel it is right for women to make less simply for having a family

Well, you should quit harping then, because they don't.

I don't think men should be cheated out of higher quality relationships with their children because they have to put food on the table. And then later cheated out of custody should a divorce rear its ugly head and they get the label of not being the "primary caretaker". Works both ways.

They all can be rectified by personal choices. There is no real "problem", not counting the one between your ears.