Republicans block equal pay measure

[Shogun]

No kidding? Do you sit down to go pee too?

careful.. I hear that kind of talk is strait up woman hating sexism.

 

[jillian]

Hey, Looks like the COURT and CONGRESS think it's ok "for employers to break the law" too!

You mean Bush's Court and his Corporatist idiots?

Shocking.

But good that McCain will have to explain to more than 50% of the population why he thinks we're supposed to get paid less than misogynist jerks.

*Edit* I am kind of curious though as to why you're pathologically incapable of having a discussion on any subject. Every issue you're involved in degenerates into some bizarre shouting match where you say nothing but keep spewing stuff, anyway.

Very sad.

 

[Shogun]

If you know the law, stop saying stupid things just for effect.

Good to know someone in HR doesn't believe in enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Be sure to tell me where you work so I can let the EEOC know what's going on.

This isn't a DISCRIMINATION law being unenforced. YOUR interpretation of how the law SHOULD apply means jack shit to the COURT. and, apparently, CONGRESS. But hey, it's good to see you sticking with the scarlet letter routine in making your case. You must win lots and lots of court cases.


After all, since lawyers clearly know everything about everything about everything it's only obvious that a raging feminist knows more about employemnt law than a guy working in HR for close to 10 years.




did I mention that the COURT and CONGRESS doesn't agree with you? Just thought I'd drop that on your lap again. I hear you can ignore facts like this by calling me a sexist or misogynist etc etc.

 

[jillian]

did I mention that the COURT and CONGRESS doesn't agree with you? Just thought I'd drop that on your lap again. I hear you can ignore facts like this by calling me a sexist or misogynist etc etc.

Actually, the majority agreed. They just didn't get to 60 votes.

Again, try again. And don't blame the messenger for your misogyny. You are what you are....

 

[Dogger]

BREAK the law? kinda dramatic, dont you think? Show me the law that states companies MUST pay every employee according to the same rate of their gender counterpart.

and, since the COURT sided with me in the first fucking place...

The Court did not side with you. You are talking out of your ass.

They shortened the period during which workers could recover for discrimination, but they did not rule that no discrimination had occurred.

If they had agreed with you, they would have dismissed the case entirely. Idiot.

 

[jillian]

The Court did not side with you. You are talking out of your ass.

They shortened the period during which workers could recover for discrimination, but they did not rule that no discrimination had occurred.

If they had agreed with you, they would have dismissed the case entirely. Idiot.

Damn! That's right.

 

[Dogger]

Damn! That's right.

Especially the "talking out of his ass" part.

 

[Shogun]

You mean Bush's Court and his Corporatist idiots?

Shocking.

But good that McCain will have to explain to more than 50% of the population why he thinks we're supposed to get paid less than misogynist jerks.

*Edit* I am kind of curious though as to why you're pathologically incapable of having a discussion on any subject. Every issue you're involved in degenerates into some bizarre shouting match where you say nothing but keep spewing stuff, anyway.

Very sad.

dont' throw a fit, Jillian. It's unbecoming of your "foot stomping" accusation.


hey, blame it on whatever court you want to. the FACT remains that they did not side with you, ergo, DISCRIMINATION LAWS have not been broken. Do YOU know that her job was interchangable with the jobs of her male counterparts? Do YOU know that her skillset is just as braod as those of her MEN co workers? NO? But, you have no problem assuming as much for the sake of some tired fucking feminist rant, eh?

Indeed, and the OTHER 50% can remember that businesses don't chain up their female employees and she had every opportunity to take her skills elsewhere.


and, as far as your application of Pathological (again, SHOCKER that you run strait to name calling. As if i havent seen THAT before) you can spare me your seething frustration as the idea of rationalized inequality. Sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Shogun]

The Court did not side with you. You are talking out of your ass.

They shortened the period during which workers could recover for discrimination, but they did not rule that no discrimination had occurred.

If they had agreed with you, they would have dismissed the case entirely. Idiot.

not at all. By making the specific decision TO shorten the valid period of recovery they essentially did what? Say it with me: Dismissed the case.

Indeed, courts are often bound to give decision based on how you think their conclusions should look.

 

[jillian]

Actually, I know you *want* me frothing, but just isn't the case.

I just think you're making yourself look silly and tried to help. Plus, it's boring.

The only hissy one here is you, honey. Maybe your underwear is too tight? Or maybe it's just lunchtime and your blood sugar is low.

 

[Shogun]

Actually, the majority agreed. They just didn't get to 60 votes.

Again, try again. And don't blame the messenger for your misogyny. You are what you are....

funny that the one person reaching for the ad hominems talks about not blaming the messenger. Irony 101 must not have been in your educational background.


and, majority or not, by the rules of congress it FAILED.


have a nice day!

 

[Shogun]

Actually, I know you *want* me frothing, but just isn't the case.

I just think you're making yourself look silly and tried to help. Plus, it's boring.

The only hissy one here is you, honey. Maybe your underwear is too tight? Or maybe it's just lunchtime and your blood sugar is low.

oh looky looky.. shit talking from the side of this debate that has neither court decision, congressional vote OR evidence of sexism beyond the typical marching order.


boring, indeed. Again, it's not like this is the first time you've chosen to pick up the ad hominems for the sake of your martyr role, eh?

 

[jillian]

funny that the one person reaching for the ad hominems talks about not blaming the messenger. Irony 101 must not have been in your educational background.


and, majority or not, by the rules of congress it FAILED.


have a nice day!

I'm sorry honey, where did I say the measure passed? Was there something I missed. I just pointed out that you were wrong.

Wanna go back and look at where the ad hominims came from? Or am I supposed to not respond to your misogynist spewings without your permission?

You have a nice day, too.

 

[Dogger]

*** blah, blah, blah ***

the FACT remains that they did not side with you, ergo, DISCRIMINATION LAWS have not been broken.

***idiotic blah, blah, blah some more***

If no discrimination laws were broken, they would not have remanded the case back to lower court. They would have dismissed.

 

[Larkinn]

not at all. By making the specific decision TO shorten the valid period of recovery they essentially did what? Say it with me: Dismissed the case.

No. They ruled against her. That is different than dismissing the case.

By the way, this ruling is idiotic from a policy standpoint, which you don't seem to understand.

The ruling is NOT saying discrimination is ok, or legal. It is NOT changing the status of when someone is discriminated or not. It IS saying that if you ARE discriminated against, and you don't find out for 180 days, your SOL. Generally statute of limitations for cause of actions are from the time you find out about the problem, not from the date of the problem.

 

[Shogun]

Especially the "talking out of his ass" part.

indeed, you can drive this point home when the court, uh, reconvenes in her case...

 

[Shogun]

No. They ruled against her. That is different than dismissing the case.

By the way, this ruling is idiotic from a policy standpoint, which you don't seem to understand.

The ruling is NOT saying discrimination is ok, or legal. It is NOT changing the status of when someone is discriminated or not. It IS saying that if you ARE discriminated against, and you don't find out for 180 days, your SOL. Generally statute of limitations for cause of actions are from the time you find out about the problem, not from the date of the problem.

opinions and assholes, buddy.


DEAL with it.

 

[jillian]

Especially the "talking out of his ass" part.

You've got that right!

 

[jillian]

opinions and assholes, buddy.


DEAL with it.

Because certainly, the great and powerful shogie knows all... and isn't, of course, regaling us with his *ahem* opinions

 

[Larkinn]

opinions and assholes, buddy.


DEAL with it.

The only opinion I stated was that the ruling was idiotic from a policy perspective.

The rest were facts, some of which were correcting your incorrect "facts".