Favourite latest post by previous poster

[Antonio the Sixth]

I thought it was pretty well-established that the answer to the OP question is yes?

Yes. The only people who disagree are Tea Party-types with their heads in the sand and Internet teenagers who've never lived in the real world.

And not that there's anything wrong with being type #2 per se. We've all been there.

Nice job insulting those who disagree with you. Anyway as I have said before, women mke less because they choose less dangerous jobs. How many women do you see studying to be a nuclear engineer?

Oh. Oh dear.

Perhaps we don't see as many females choosing "dangerous jobs" such as nuclear engineer (note to self: is nuclear engineer a dangerous job? Engineers are usually busy behind desks are they not? Maybe it's dangerous because it involves math?) because being in that field inevitably leads them to interacting with insufferably ignorant, sexist behavior perfectly exemplified by your comment. I had a job for six months working in the steel industry. It was bloody hot in the factory due to the furnaces, you were expected to do lots of heavy lifting, and every day you'd walk out covered in soot. As you might expect, there were basically no women there - and during the group interview process where they described the working conditions all of the girls walked out not wanting to even try. I don't blame them - there are only two results when a woman chooses to work in a factory like that. She's either automatically a lesbian and can expect to be treated with disdain or, if not, can expect to be constantly sexually demeaned behind her back. She'd also likely given the less difficult roles and resented by those of us expected to do the heavy lifting. Any advancement she made would have people questioning whether or not she deserved it or if she was doing something shady. But I'm sure none of that had anything to do with it. It was probably just icky and too hard (that is: her fault).

Anyway, that doesn't have much to do with your overall nonsensical point. These equal pay for equal work debates are built on the common understanding that we are talking about men and women doing the same job with the same experience and qualifications who still, nevertheless, get paid less. As jfern noted, this isn't as true when we're talking about women and men fresh out of university who are childless and inexperienced. It can, in fact, be the opposite. Great.

That's the starting point. As life goes on, women face considerably more disruptions than men because we expect them (and, of course, often they happily choose) to take time off from careers to focus on having children or caring for family members. When women return to the workforce, they've lost ground. Are you ready? I'm going to throw a graph at you.



Then there's the fun fact that, strictly because of often unintentional sexism (I hope), women who ask for raises are not given them as often as men (cite). A man who asks for a raise is assertive and strong as men ought to be. Women? Not so much. That's (again, sometimes unintentionally) viewed as uncomely behavior for a lady.

Perhaps what you meant was that women are more likely to work at jobs that aren't professional or managerial and therefore pay less. This is true. Why this is so could be that these lower paying jobs offer women more flexibility with their busy schedules when they have to juggle caring duties at home. Most people, upon learning that, will breathe a sigh of relief. It's their own fault! Phew! I knew it would be okay and we won't have to change anything. But the solution to that problem involves rather frightening things like requiring businesses and government to provide leave for women (and men) when they start to have families. Women shouldn't have to choose between caring for their children and keeping that high-salary, personally fulfilling job. We should be letting them take time off for a while and welcoming them back to the same work and pay as before.

But businesses wouldn't like that sort of inefficiency being introduced. You know what? Tough sh**t. When someone takes an extended leave from their job, someone has to fill in. That work either gets spread around or several people have to be hired to come in a fill in. That's good for the economy. Hurray! I'm glad I've changed your mind.

[IceSpear]

I could honestly care less.

[SWE]

So most of them are angsty teenagers that are angry they can't get laid?

[TDAS04]

Peter King just made me like Rand Paul a lot more than I already do

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There is nothing broken about the Supreme Court except for the fact it sometimes reaches decisions that you disagree with, sometimes vehemently.  That is not an excuse to change the existing system. 

You're missing the point.  I don't know where you came up this the silly idea that anyone who disagrees with the precise structure of the system just doesn't like the court's decisions.  The court makes some good decisions, some bad decision.  Even if a decision is good, that doesn't mean that lifetime appointment itself is good.

Whether decisions are good or bad has nothing to do with why some disagree with the concept of lifetime appointments.

[Lief 🗽]

Crime.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Peter King and Rand Paul are both terrible.

[Maxwell]

True Leftists at least know that their ideas are unpopular and are, for the most part, genuine in what they believe.  Tumblr Leftists strike me as one of those "we call ourselves individuals just for the sake of calling ourselves individuals" types.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That is a viciously sexist and disgusting post.

[Potatoe]

Hahahahahahaha, no.

If I ever happen not to eat meat for a meal, the likelihood that I'm eating something containing large quantities of cheese is about 95%.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Washington Post

With a 400+ EV landslide, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been shut out of the Republican Party, thanks to the monster of the ticket we know as the Daschle/Cleland, who crushed the fragile attempt at a third term by Bush, who lost the Senate and House to the Democrats due to a mix of reasons, mostly due to his repeal of the 22nd Amendment in early 2006, which both Cleland and failed Republican Candidate Chaffee bashed the incumbent for. President Daschle promises to include Universal Health Care and a 12 Dollar Minimum wage in his new package, entitled "Daschlecare", economists see the DOW rebounding with 100 points by May. President Bush has given his concession speech a couple of hours ago.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Will the mass-murdering Cambodian dictator sink the Guntaker?

Will Snowstalker stop making stupid posts?

[SWE]

I have a severely autistic brother who is in a group home, and I use the word "retard" all the time. Why? Because I’m not oversensitive and I am not actually calling my brother it.  an asshole.

You guys are being insensitive to those who do not have assholes. Only those without assholes can call somebody an asshole.

[TDAS04]

Yes, I mean, Johnson and Kirk are up, that could win back the Senate if the Republicans get 51-49 in 2014, not to mention Rubio, who could run for President, and if he does, West is probably the most likely to get Nominated, and he would lose if Schultz or someone else entered, and there's a possibility of Paul's seat being more contested if he runs as well, Chandler could run.

Here's a best case Scenario in 2016 (For the Dems [for me at least])

Democratic Net gain of +9

Ron Johnson is defeated by Russ Feingold
Roy Blunt is defeated by Jay Nixon
Dan Coats is defeated by Evan Bayh
Kelly Ayotte/Charles Bass is defeated by Carol Shea Porter
Mark Kirk is defeated by Lisa Madigan/Tammy Duckworth
Pat Toomey is defeated by Joe Sestak
John Boozman* is defeated by Mike Beebe
Richard Burr is defeated by Clay Aiken/Bev Perdue/G. K. Butterfield
Marco Rubio/Allen West is defeated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The Dems best case scenario involves losing Ohio?

Portman is fairly popular,

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/08/in-ohio-hillary-clinton-lead-shows-frustration-with-gop.html#more

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, if only he did something to piss off the tea party, like endorsing gay marriage or something

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Lifetime judicial appointments result in too much difficulty in achieving a court that undos its bad prior decisions, and there are a few awful decisions of the recent court that we're going to be stuck with for a while.  Too much authority for too long of time for anyone is corrupting, and limiting time on the court to a fixed 20 years would be the best solution.

There's nothing inherently positive in reversing prior decisions. If anything, I would think that more frequent SCOTUS rotation would have a negative effect by politicizing the court further. Besides, you have no guarantee that decisions that reversed thanks to newly appointed Justices would be ones you view negatively. They could just as easily reverse decisions you view positively.

Yes, of course they could reverse decisions that I like.  This isn't about the court making decisions that I like; it's just a disagreement of what the best system is.

Although you have a point that frequent rotation invites may more politicization.  However, 20 years on the bench is not that short of time, and would keep much stability.  With lifetime appointments, a series of justice deaths under a single administration could result in young appointments by a single president with a strong ideology, and they may make bad decisions; those bad decisions may even reverse prior good decisions, or a precedent that the court had traditionally subscribed to.  The court could be radical, and if the ideological justices are young, they will be there for a while.

Again, it doesn't have to be about decisions that I don't like, and suggesting that it is misrepresents the whole point.  The court could make decisions that you think are horrible, and those decisions may be there for a long time.  But if you honestly feel that the current system is best, then that's fine.  I happen to believe that that system could be improved, regardless of ideology regarding court decisions.

[SWE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If anyone thinks she's seriously considering a run, leave the Forum and politics now.

Since when is Roberts vulnerable? And why do they think running Sebelius will help the KS D's in any way?

Seriously, I don't think she will run.

Seriously, like I have said, I believe Roberts will win the primary. The tea party guy is so crazy, http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2014/03/the-doctors-hard-on-wolfs-x-ray-posting-jokes/
If he wins, (and that's likely), I'm sure the democrats would have an opening. But Sebelius won't probably run, but the actual democrat is relatively decent.

And PS Chairmansanchez: Missouri isn't a swing state, I didn't know you were a such dem hack .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Close_states.2Fdistricts

[IceSpear]

IceSpear continues to be a douche. More at eleven.

[SWE]

Elizabeth Warren breathed oxygen today. I think she's running. I mean, if she wasn't, why even bother?

[Potatoe]

The same way if Christie and/or Bush do run: Walker wins the nomination.

Does the Tea Party then claim Walker wasn't a real conservative after his subesquent loss?

Anyone who loses isn't a real conservative.

Todd Akin was a liberal

[Goldwater]

Oasis:

1960:

Abraham Lincoln/Hannibal Hamlin:146 EV, 33.9% (Republican)
John C. Breckinridge/Joseph Lane:127 EV, 33.01% (Southern Democrat)
Stephen Douglas/Hershel Johnson:30 EV, 33% (Northern Democrat)

-Congress elected Breckinridge to the enragement of many abolitionists, sparking a Civil War, with the entire Northeast region seceding, founding the "Free States of America"

[IceSpear]

FF, because he's a neoliberal fascist corporatist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Miles (not a right-wing Democrat).

[windjammer]

Yesterday Renzi presented his final plan for the 1000€ income tax cut.

There are a few disappointments. The measure is covered only for the year 2014 (though he promised to make it permanent), and more importantly, it doesn't cover the lowest incomes (those who didn't even pay taxes). Still, it's better than nothing. And Renzi found different ways to cut spending without really hurting the social safety net, which is a welcome change from previous governments.

[Flake]

I don't understand the problem to force people to join a union seriously...