You gotta love the bogus bullshit this guy tries to pass off to the ignorant. Why are 99% of occupational fatalities men? Titles dont equal equal pay. On average, a male doctor or lawyer works 500 more ours per year. than a woman doctor or lawyer How about using a little common sense? If I were an evil greedy Republican bussiness man, I would only hire Mexicans and women if I had to pay them less, right? You can listen to this nut or read Economic Facts and Fallacies.
Equal pay for EQUAL work would take into consideration the discrepancy you mentioned, even if it were true. And there's more to it that juts the earnings. But, I guess you're all for MEN deciding what rights women have over their own bodies.
Why don't people file suit with their employers under existing discrimination laws if they are not being paid the same for equal work? Do you really believe there are millions- even tens of millions of potential suits that for some reason are not being taking up, which would be the case for this stat to be true? And what do you think the government should do beyond passing a law that says employers are not allowed to discriminate pay based on gender (which they already have)? Should they just pass it again?
Do you really believe this Mike? Have you thought through this at all? Because what you are talking about is a massive MASSIVE conspiracy perpetuated by millions and millions of people (men and women) to keep female wages lower.
Because the disparity is in raw weekly wages. It is not accounting for equal work, but some people want to make it seem like it is.
“TS, ever heard of the Lilly Ledbetter Act?”
Vaguely. After looking it up, this act is an addendum to the Federal Equal Pay Act- the one that has been in place for fifty years yet Mike seemingly denies it exists. The addendum was to address statute of limitations for when an employee can sue for wage discrimination. Get that, Mike? People can sue for wage discrimination based on gender, and they have been able to do so for the last 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
As always, Mike, I come at you hard, with solid proof. How about you take a look at this Department of Labor report on women’s earnings?
On average in 2012, women made about 81 percent of the median earnings of male full-time wage and salary workers. […] It is important to note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings differences.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf
Take a special look at page 9. You can see the gap grow with age as more women get married and start having kids. You asked how to explain the disparity. Well this is the biggest reason- even more so than “soft sciences” vs. “hard sciences”, which is another big factor. The telltale statistic is to look at the “Never married” status where you can see the wage gap shrinks all the way to 96%.
So what is your reaction to this? In the past I have got you with actual text from bills in plain English, but I still can’t break your state of denial. So I wouldn’t be surprised if you say “nuh-uh” again, because some liberal dude wearing a tweed sport coat told you different on You Tube.
Also, what do you imagine is going on? Is it every company in the country that is doing this? Or is it just the ones run by conservative men? Meaning that 80 cents on the dollar average is really more like 60 cents, or even 50 cents where women hating Republicans call the shots to make up for fair wages that honest left leaning companies pay their female employees. Is that what you think is going on? Or do they all do it? Does Michael Bloomberg hate women too? What about your new heroes Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Ballmer? Sheryl Sandberg? Does she hate women? Meg Whitman? Yeah, she probably does- she’s a Republican.
The point TS, women couldn't even legally sue even if they proved pay discrimination. So your BS about why don't they just sue just shows how much you don't know.
"The point TS, women couldn't even legally sue even if they proved pay discrimination."
Sorry Anon, that isn't accurate. Women have been able to sue for such discrimination since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is what unequal pay suits use. All the Ledbetter act did was modify the statute of limitations in response to a loss by SCOTUS.
They could sue as long as they were within the statute of limitations. It was too short (or just interpreted incorrectly- saying the statute starts at the first paycheck instead of the last is BS). But that's been fixed for the last five years. What's the complaint now?
You guys really are women haters. Thanks for proving it. She didn't even find out she was being discriminated against until after the statute of limitations ended. The law changed that as it should have. I'm sure you think, to bad she's out of it. Of course you would approve of legal discrimination, as your thinking on the Constitution shows.
Did you not read what I said? I called the court ruling on the statute of limitations BS, and I am glad that is fixed so the court can’t rule that way again. But go back to by original point. Even the Lilly Ledbetter act has been in place for five years. What is the complaint now? There should be millions of lawsuits if there is discrimination like this guy says.
Interesting illustration showing the concern over every little, dare I say it, "common sense" restriction on a woman's right to choose to continue her pregnancy. Much like the "common sense" restrictions on owning firearms. It is also, using a term my father often used, malarkey, because even if a Republican majority comes about in both houses, the President can still veto these onerous bills. And if there are enough votes to override such a veto, it would truly show bipartisan support. And after all, he's a lame duck President, he isn't running again. No worries.
Wow, all I can say is WOW! A MUCH larger sweep than even I anticipated. Not just in the Senate but in the House. And the Governors races as well, WOW! Then going in even deeper was all the States own local races, even larger sweeps. Wow, all I can say is wow.
Nice to know that you believe these bills are onerous!
But just the same, right now the republicans are the bad guys/obstructionists. Democrats are the only ones doing the work of the people. We need to consign the current republican party as it now stands in power to the dustbin of history. Let your children have another go at it say in about another twenty years.
Common sense restrictions on a woman's right to choose to continue her pregnancy? You can say that with a straight face?
Common sense restrictions on guns are about saving lives.
"Common sense restrictions on a woman's right to choose to continue her pregnancy? You can say that with a straight face? Common sense restrictions on guns are about saving lives."
Howdy FJ. I actually support a woman's right to self determination over her body. Though I do have some misgivings over the seeming expectation for the government to fund it. My comments regarding "common sense" restrictions on abortion seem to mimic the philosophy of gun control advocates. Particularly the one you just used in regards to saving lives. And as I have said in other posts, each instance of a specified or perceived right has its group of advocates that fight tooth and nail about any real or perceived intrusion or restriction on that right. Be it free speech, abortion, or gun rights. And each advocacy group seems to have joined to them at the hip, an opposing group that demonizes the first group.
That's only reasonable logic if you think a woman's body is the same as a gun. There is an advocate for everything, that doesn't mean all issues are of equal importance, neither are rights.
Love the way these gun loons cry for their rights to the point of threatening to violently attack the government if their "perceived" rights are violated, but they have no problem ignoring the rights of others, even claiming they have no rights. We had legal slavery for 100's of years because the majority of representatives voted for laws to protect it, so according to the thinking of SS and other loons, that meant it was OK.
"We had legal slavery for 100's of years because the majority of representatives voted for laws to protect it, so according to the thinking of SS and other loons, that meant it was OK."
First you need to work on those math skills Anon. Start from the founding of the country until slavery is outlawed nationwide and the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865. Let us know what you come up with. I'm having trouble understanding the logic of supporting the armed resistance against violations of human rights by governments having anything to do with condoning these violations of rights merely because of being passed by a majority of elected officials. In fact, its been you mainly that seems to think any resistance to government violations is unlawful, merely because its the law.
You work on your math SS. Slavery was supported by law WAY before the founding of the United States of America, by about 300 years. Yes, you and your gun loons seem to think any perceived injustice in YOUR mind is actionable by armed attack on the government. You are the ones who reject the rule of law, and YOU are the ones who claim even a vote by the minority means all citizens agree with that outcome. Wrong. Lincoln did LEGALLY what you support. He took arms against those who refused to follow the law and were willing to take arms against the government because they disagreed with the law. Except they were fighting FOR slavery, an immorality well worth fighting for, not to mention securing the law of the Constitution. You have it backwards, as usual.
"You work on your math SS. Slavery was supported by law WAY before the founding of the United States of America, by about 300 years."
Ah, you mean when we were a British colony and fell under their legal system?
"Yes, you and your gun loons seem to think any perceived injustice in YOUR mind is actionable by armed attack on the government."
Ah yes, so you say. BTW, have you heard back from the FBI yet regarding Kurt's alleged illegal activities? I, actually have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Have you? Perhaps you'll be reporting me next, accusing me uf un-American activities.....hmmm, I recall someone fairly famous being into that sort of thing. Someone from Wisconsin. Ring any bells?
"Lincoln did LEGALLY what you support. He took arms against those who refused to follow the law and were willing to take arms against the government because they disagreed with the law."
I'm actually reading a very interesting book titled "Negroes And The Gun" by Nicholas Johnson. I'm currently into the pre-civil war era where many blacks took up arms against law enforcement and hired thugs working on the side of the current law to secure and maintain their liberty. Many whites were also involved both by taking up arms and in other wars such as the use of jury nullification, refusing to convict those who violated such immoral laws. And of course there was the era of Democratic Jim Crow laws in the south and groups who armed themselves in defiance of laws passed with the intention of making a class of citizen defenseless against armed bands of thugs who often had the overt support of local law enforcement. Try looking up Robert F. Williams,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams
Ironically, he was forced to flee the country when he was accused of kidnapping a white couple that he took under his protection when they were threatened with harm during civil unrest in his town. What is your opinion for example in regards to what became a common practice of groups assisting women who were pregnant in finding a doctor willing to perform an abortion in violation of the laws in force at the time? Were they criminals such as you seem to believe Kurt and I are? Or were they something else? And how about the doctors who risked both imprisonment and the loss of their medical license to provide these abortions?
Anon, I don't know where you are getting your 300 years from, but it is wrong. First slaves in the colonies was about 1620. Slavery had been practiced in the B.C era.
If you can find anywhere in the Constitution that prohibits secession, let me know. Here's Jefferson: “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Got that? "Let them stand undisturbed". And here is what Dishonest Abe had to say about it on Jan. 12 1848 "any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." He even called it a "sacred right."
That's funny since Lincoln started a war that killed over 600,000 for the South's secession. SS said the founding of the country. So he was wrong. Ironically the examples you cite were criminals. It was a legal processed that freed the slaves. People like King and Gandhi that actually made a huge difference in their societies, were non violent. Read history.
""any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . . . "
There I have what OS? Lincoln being a hypocrite? So on one hand he says secession is a right, on the other he started the bloodiest war in history because of secession. Make up your mind OS which one do you want Lincoln to be? Actions are stronger than words, just as the founders said all men are created equal, but owned slaves. Yet you gun loons think the founders are mistake proof Gods, so of course all the laws they wrote over 250 years ago are infalible and can/should never be changed.
I see you are going to bend over backwards to avoid the secession question and where the Constitution prohibits it. Remember when New England threatened it during the War of 1812, nobody said, BOO!
You gotta love the bogus bullshit this guy tries to pass off to the ignorant.
ReplyDeleteWhy are 99% of occupational fatalities men?
Titles dont equal equal pay. On average, a male doctor or lawyer works 500 more ours per year. than a woman doctor or lawyer
How about using a little common sense? If I were an evil greedy Republican bussiness man, I would only hire Mexicans and women if I had to pay them less, right?
You can listen to this nut or read Economic Facts and Fallacies.
orlin sellers
Equal pay for EQUAL work would take into consideration the discrepancy you mentioned, even if it were true. And there's more to it that juts the earnings. But, I guess you're all for MEN deciding what rights women have over their own bodies.
DeleteWhy don't people file suit with their employers under existing discrimination laws if they are not being paid the same for equal work? Do you really believe there are millions- even tens of millions of potential suits that for some reason are not being taking up, which would be the case for this stat to be true? And what do you think the government should do beyond passing a law that says employers are not allowed to discriminate pay based on gender (which they already have)? Should they just pass it again?
DeleteDo you really believe this Mike? Have you thought through this at all? Because what you are talking about is a massive MASSIVE conspiracy perpetuated by millions and millions of people (men and women) to keep female wages lower.
TS, ever heard of the Lilly Ledbetter Act?
DeleteThat's exactly what it is, TS. Otherwise, how do you explain the continuing disparities?
DeleteBecause the disparity is in raw weekly wages. It is not accounting for equal work, but some people want to make it seem like it is.
Delete“TS, ever heard of the Lilly Ledbetter Act?”
Vaguely. After looking it up, this act is an addendum to the Federal Equal Pay Act- the one that has been in place for fifty years yet Mike seemingly denies it exists. The addendum was to address statute of limitations for when an employee can sue for wage discrimination. Get that, Mike? People can sue for wage discrimination based on gender, and they have been able to do so for the last 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
As always, Mike, I come at you hard, with solid proof. How about you take a look at this Department of Labor report on women’s earnings?
On average in 2012, women made about 81 percent of the median earnings of male full-time wage and salary workers.
[…]
It is important to note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings differences.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf
Take a special look at page 9. You can see the gap grow with age as more women get married and start having kids. You asked how to explain the disparity. Well this is the biggest reason- even more so than “soft sciences” vs. “hard sciences”, which is another big factor. The telltale statistic is to look at the “Never married” status where you can see the wage gap shrinks all the way to 96%.
So what is your reaction to this? In the past I have got you with actual text from bills in plain English, but I still can’t break your state of denial. So I wouldn’t be surprised if you say “nuh-uh” again, because some liberal dude wearing a tweed sport coat told you different on You Tube.
Also, what do you imagine is going on? Is it every company in the country that is doing this? Or is it just the ones run by conservative men? Meaning that 80 cents on the dollar average is really more like 60 cents, or even 50 cents where women hating Republicans call the shots to make up for fair wages that honest left leaning companies pay their female employees. Is that what you think is going on? Or do they all do it? Does Michael Bloomberg hate women too? What about your new heroes Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Ballmer? Sheryl Sandberg? Does she hate women? Meg Whitman? Yeah, she probably does- she’s a Republican.
DeleteThe point TS, women couldn't even legally sue even if they proved pay discrimination. So your BS about why don't they just sue just shows how much you don't know.
Delete"The point TS, women couldn't even legally sue even if they proved pay discrimination."
DeleteSorry Anon, that isn't accurate. Women have been able to sue for such discrimination since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is what unequal pay suits use. All the Ledbetter act did was modify the statute of limitations in response to a loss by SCOTUS.
They could sue as long as they were within the statute of limitations. It was too short (or just interpreted incorrectly- saying the statute starts at the first paycheck instead of the last is BS). But that's been fixed for the last five years. What's the complaint now?
DeleteYou guys really are women haters. Thanks for proving it. She didn't even find out she was being discriminated against until after the statute of limitations ended. The law changed that as it should have. I'm sure you think, to bad she's out of it. Of course you would approve of legal discrimination, as your thinking on the Constitution shows.
DeleteDid you not read what I said? I called the court ruling on the statute of limitations BS, and I am glad that is fixed so the court can’t rule that way again. But go back to by original point. Even the Lilly Ledbetter act has been in place for five years. What is the complaint now? There should be millions of lawsuits if there is discrimination like this guy says.
DeleteInteresting illustration showing the concern over every little, dare I say it, "common sense" restriction on a woman's right to choose to continue her pregnancy. Much like the "common sense" restrictions on owning firearms.
ReplyDeleteIt is also, using a term my father often used, malarkey, because even if a Republican majority comes about in both houses, the President can still veto these onerous bills. And if there are enough votes to override such a veto, it would truly show bipartisan support.
And after all, he's a lame duck President, he isn't running again. No worries.
Well, there will be big worries if the Obama presidency so soured the country that the Dems lose the White House.
DeleteAnd that's what it is looking like Mike.
DeleteYou may be right. It's sure gonna be interesting.
DeleteWow, all I can say is WOW!
DeleteA MUCH larger sweep than even I anticipated. Not just in the Senate but in the House. And the Governors races as well, WOW! Then going in even deeper was all the States own local races, even larger sweeps. Wow, all I can say is wow.
Nice to know that you believe these bills are onerous!
ReplyDeleteBut just the same, right now the republicans are the bad guys/obstructionists. Democrats are the only ones doing the work of the people. We need to consign the current republican party as it now stands in power to the dustbin of history. Let your children have another go at it say in about another twenty years.
Common sense restrictions on a woman's right to choose to continue her pregnancy? You can say that with a straight face?
Common sense restrictions on guns are about saving lives.
"Common sense restrictions on a woman's right to choose to continue her pregnancy? You can say that with a straight face?
DeleteCommon sense restrictions on guns are about saving lives."
Howdy FJ. I actually support a woman's right to self determination over her body. Though I do have some misgivings over the seeming expectation for the government to fund it.
My comments regarding "common sense" restrictions on abortion seem to mimic the philosophy of gun control advocates. Particularly the one you just used in regards to saving lives.
And as I have said in other posts, each instance of a specified or perceived right has its group of advocates that fight tooth and nail about any real or perceived intrusion or restriction on that right.
Be it free speech, abortion, or gun rights. And each advocacy group seems to have joined to them at the hip, an opposing group that demonizes the first group.
That's only reasonable logic if you think a woman's body is the same as a gun. There is an advocate for everything, that doesn't mean all issues are of equal importance, neither are rights.
DeleteLove the way these gun loons cry for their rights to the point of threatening to violently attack the government if their "perceived" rights are violated, but they have no problem ignoring the rights of others, even claiming they have no rights. We had legal slavery for 100's of years because the majority of representatives voted for laws to protect it, so according to the thinking of SS and other loons, that meant it was OK.
ReplyDelete"We had legal slavery for 100's of years because the majority of representatives voted for laws to protect it, so according to the thinking of SS and other loons, that meant it was OK."
ReplyDeleteFirst you need to work on those math skills Anon. Start from the founding of the country until slavery is outlawed nationwide and the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865. Let us know what you come up with.
I'm having trouble understanding the logic of supporting the armed resistance against violations of human rights by governments having anything to do with condoning these violations of rights merely because of being passed by a majority of elected officials.
In fact, its been you mainly that seems to think any resistance to government violations is unlawful, merely because its the law.
You work on your math SS. Slavery was supported by law WAY before the founding of the United States of America, by about 300 years.
DeleteYes, you and your gun loons seem to think any perceived injustice in YOUR mind is actionable by armed attack on the government. You are the ones who reject the rule of law, and YOU are the ones who claim even a vote by the minority means all citizens agree with that outcome. Wrong. Lincoln did LEGALLY what you support. He took arms against those who refused to follow the law and were willing to take arms against the government because they disagreed with the law. Except they were fighting FOR slavery, an immorality well worth fighting for, not to mention securing the law of the Constitution. You have it backwards, as usual.
"You work on your math SS. Slavery was supported by law WAY before the founding of the United States of America, by about 300 years."
DeleteAh, you mean when we were a British colony and fell under their legal system?
"Yes, you and your gun loons seem to think any perceived injustice in YOUR mind is actionable by armed attack on the government."
Ah yes, so you say. BTW, have you heard back from the FBI yet regarding Kurt's alleged illegal activities? I, actually have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Have you? Perhaps you'll be reporting me next, accusing me uf un-American activities.....hmmm, I recall someone fairly famous being into that sort of thing. Someone from Wisconsin. Ring any bells?
"Lincoln did LEGALLY what you support. He took arms against those who refused to follow the law and were willing to take arms against the government because they disagreed with the law."
I'm actually reading a very interesting book titled "Negroes And The Gun" by Nicholas Johnson. I'm currently into the pre-civil war era where many blacks took up arms against law enforcement and hired thugs working on the side of the current law to secure and maintain their liberty.
Many whites were also involved both by taking up arms and in other wars such as the use of jury nullification, refusing to convict those who violated such immoral laws.
And of course there was the era of Democratic Jim Crow laws in the south and groups who armed themselves in defiance of laws passed with the intention of making a class of citizen defenseless against armed bands of thugs who often had the overt support of local law enforcement.
Try looking up Robert F. Williams,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams
Ironically, he was forced to flee the country when he was accused of kidnapping a white couple that he took under his protection when they were threatened with harm during civil unrest in his town.
What is your opinion for example in regards to what became a common practice of groups assisting women who were pregnant in finding a doctor willing to perform an abortion in violation of the laws in force at the time?
Were they criminals such as you seem to believe Kurt and I are? Or were they something else? And how about the doctors who risked both imprisonment and the loss of their medical license to provide these abortions?
Anon, I don't know where you are getting your 300 years from, but it is wrong.
DeleteFirst slaves in the colonies was about 1620. Slavery had been practiced in the B.C era.
If you can find anywhere in the Constitution that prohibits secession, let me know.
Here's Jefferson:
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
Got that? "Let them stand undisturbed".
And here is what Dishonest Abe had to say about it on Jan. 12 1848
"any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."
He even called it a "sacred right."
Time for you to review your history.
orlin sellers
That's funny since Lincoln started a war that killed over 600,000 for the South's secession.
DeleteSS said the founding of the country. So he was wrong.
Ironically the examples you cite were criminals. It was a legal processed that freed the slaves. People like King and Gandhi that actually made a huge difference in their societies, were non violent. Read history.
And there you have it Anon, "Lincoln started a war that killed over 600,000"
DeleteYou finally got it right.
orlin sellers
""any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . . . "
DeleteThere I have what OS? Lincoln being a hypocrite?
So on one hand he says secession is a right, on the other he started the bloodiest war in history because of secession.
Make up your mind OS which one do you want Lincoln to be? Actions are stronger than words, just as the founders said all men are created equal, but owned slaves. Yet you gun loons think the founders are mistake proof Gods, so of course all the laws they wrote over 250 years ago are infalible and can/should never be changed.
I see you are going to bend over backwards to avoid the secession question and where the Constitution prohibits it.
DeleteRemember when New England threatened it during the War of 1812, nobody said, BOO!
orlin sellers
And you are bending over backwards to avoid that I proved you wrong and now have nothing to say. Thanks for proving me correct once again.
Delete100,000 sperm and you were the fastest?
Deleteorlin sellers