Markadelphia, I notice you give yourself a pass from explaining why democrats behave in the same ways that you decry. You have a long history on here of asking republicans about their hypocrisy, why don't you step up and tell us why female staffers in the white house make less than the male staffers do.
btw, if this is an example of the house candidates your party is putting up, there is very little to worry about if one is a republican. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00T9Vhj8NMc
We can discuss the evidence you brought to light and whether or not it is valid after you answer my question, Rob. If you don't think there is pay discrimination between men and women, there's no point in proceeding further.
As far as the White House paying women less (giving exactly the same reasons businesses say the differential exists), the fish rots from the head first. In his younger days, it's rumoured that Obama paid female prostitutes 80 cents for every dollar he paid male prostitutes... ;-)
markadelphia, has anyone ever told you in real life that you have control issues? Since you're so concerned about setting the terms of the debate, I do think there is pay discrimination between men and women, I never asserted otherwise. Whether or not the evidence is valid? So the accuracy of the numbers don't matter to you, we all know that what you focus on is if the person who says something has the right cred to say it.
, I do think there is pay discrimination between men and women
Good. So do I. Now, what should we do about it?
As to your evidence, you presented a Non Sequitur about Elizabeth Warren (how do you know for certain that she doesn't give her brother money, btw?) and a Non Sequitur about Fox News and a Democratic Congressional candidate. Where is your evidence about "occupations at the White House?" "Senator Dick Durbin's office?" Let's see some non biased sources, please.
Still attempting to set the terms and conditions that have to be met before you will respond? Have to have everything presented to you on a silver platter? You won’t address it on your own because it doesn't fit with your preferred narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5KRgxQyrb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy6y0pYu73c
Are Jay Carney, cbs and cnn conservative enough for you to continue to stall in offering up your opinion? Jay Carney admitted the pay gap exists.
What do we do about it? Just pass more laws! You think that Washington DC can and wants to fix this, which is laughable. Your side loses a campaign issue if the gap doesn't exist, therefore the people you elect need the gap.
Congratulations, Rob. You just made an argument and somewhat left out logical fallacies:)
Question (and I don't know the answer)-is the president in charge of setting his salary and the White House staff salary? Or does that come from a budget passed by Congress? Let's assume for now that he is in charge of that.
So, there is a pay gap between women and men and it exists in the White House as well. Why is it then a bad thing that the president wants to correct this and even do better himself? Reflecting and changing is part of being a Democrat and a liberal. I realize this may seem alien to you but it's what they do. When criticism is aimed at Republicans, it's because they don't want to do anything, just as you note here with the "just pass more laws" meme. That's not an answer. Whenever there is a problem, you guys respond with, "Do nothing, government because you always fuck it up." Really?
There is certainly room for criticism on the White House for this (as well as being completely limp in the face of the rising assaults on women in the military) but at least they have a plan on the table to fix this, even themselves. Why don't you?
There's the problem right there Captain Obvious. Not everything you believe to be a problem is a problem firstly, and secondly, even when there is a problem that doesn't automatically mean govt can fix it. In some cases yes, and in some, no - but you never fucking see the distinction. To you and every other statist lib/prog-tard - every fucking thing that makes your sphincter twitch needs a new law/policy/program. Naturally you (or should I say the voice in your head) will interpret what I just wrote as COMPLETE HATRED OF ALL GOVT.
Please fuck yourself with a broken mop handle when you hear that voice, m'kay?
To you and every other statist lib/prog-tard - every fucking thing that makes your sphincter twitch needs a new law/policy/program. Naturally you (or should I say the voice in your head) will interpret what I just wrote as COMPLETE HATRED OF ALL GOVT.
juxtaposed with...
Well, first you commie fucktards would have to change the law and that is not likely to happen, but if you somehow manage it, I and many others will fight.
I can barely tolerate you leftist/statists as it stands.
What Juris Imprudent said in his first paragraph in the 9:31 post, without the cussing. You think the govt can solve way too many problems,
So the pay gap existing in the private sector is evidence of discrimination but when it exists in your white house it is seen as an opportunity for Obama to better himself?
The pay gap has always existed and it always will exist, and that is due to women making choices (like my wife did when we had children) to scale back and work part time, among other decisions that affect the numbers as a whole. But it is an election year and you need to convince people of their victimhood to get them out to the polls. Keep it up.
The problem isn't that I think the government should solve too many problems. It's that you think they should solve too few. This is largely due to the control freak mindset that conservatives have (which I think actually hides a secret authoritarian mindset).
As to your last paragraph, blaming the victim never really works out, dude. It's not an answer and you know, honestly, what is worse than the alleged victim culture? Anti-victim culture...made up of people who lack the ability to reflect and who themselves are just as big of whiners, continually claiming victimhood all the time:)
This is largely due to the control freak mindset that conservatives have
Projection is such a bad habit for you.
I want to let people figure out how to solve things are their own and that makes me a control freak? Whereas you can't stand people doing things you disagree with and want the govt to stop them and you are not a control freak?
What color is the sky in your world?
(which I think actually hides a secret authoritarian mindset).
I am sorry if I must force you to be free, but really, it is for your own good.
So, freedom is dying, eh juris? Tell me...how were your freedoms curtailed today? What did the federal government do to you today or event this week that has seriously impeded your freedom?
I want to let people figure out how to solve things are their own and that makes me a control freak? Whereas you can't stand people doing things you disagree with and want the govt to stop them and you are not a control freak?
Where do you draw the line on this, juris? This seems an awful lot like anarchy to me. You say you think some laws are necessary but many aren't. Fine. Which ones do we keep and which ones do we throw out? Of the latter category, provide some real world and current examples of doing without these laws were more beneficial to a country. Just three or four will do.
Tell me...how were your freedoms curtailed today? What did the federal government do to you today or event this week that has seriously impeded your freedom?
Let's go back to exactly what we were talking about. Your contention was that taking guns away (or talking someone out of them - it all depends on which way the wind is blowing between your ears) from some people does not diminish freedom.
Freedom is diminished not just because mine is lessened, at this moment - which is exactly why I alluded to Martin Niemöller. Freedom was horribly diminished under Jim Crow even though it had no direct impact on me in the slightest. You apparently believe that as long as you aren't terribly inconvenienced (except of course by those evil people with Centerpoint/RMR) that freedom must be flourishing.
And then you accuse me of being a control freak and self centered. If you were any kind of decent human being you would look at yourself in the mirror and be embarrassed. You aren't though, are you - not even a little?
This seems an awful lot like anarchy to me.
Well, there is one more thing you don't understand very well but have a very strong opinion about.
Fine. I don't understand. Explain it to me. Which laws stay and which ones go? Of the latter, what real world examples can you provide that show inprovement in freedom?
Let me take a small example to illustrate the over-all concept.
Your school is governed by a set of formal rules & policy, no? Is there a formal rule or policy for every single interaction that can be imagined? Probably not, and the multitude of "non-serious" conflicts that might arise are not resolved via either rule or policy or adjudication by management. Instead, those are dealt with by the individuals involved - possibly with some outside assistance but without resorting to formal procedures and/or sanctions. That is basis for anarchy - the resolution of disputes without resorting to the centralized power (i.e. coercion) of govt.
So you already live on the edge of anarchy - where people resolve disputes without involving centralized, formal authority.
The question is always about how much latitude do such non-coercive situations have. There is no such thing as all or nothing. Not all disputes can be handled this way (save in the imaginations of hard-core anarchists), nor can every aspect of life be regulated (save in the delusions of totalitarian theorists).
I've asked you repeatedly about examples of govt over-reach, and you rarely if ever concede that such is possible - that there isn't a problem that govt cannot solve. On the occasion that you do see a bad govt action you are quick to blame the individual not the institution (which ironically is exactly the opposite of what you do when you critique free market capitalism).
Now, let's look at a school policy which I believe you have criticized - "zero tolerance". Why is zero tolerance a bad idea? It really is the ultimate way of sending a message isn't it? And there are many who believe that is the purpose of govt and rules and so forth - to send a message, a stern and unbending reproach to prevent some offensive behavior. Zero tolerance really is the bureaucratic ideal, since no person can be held responsible for issuing such a harsh response when it might not really be warranted.
Zero tolerance is about as perfect a counterpoint to anarchy as can be imagined.
I was more interested in hearing about some specific federal government laws that you'd like to see go away. Zero tolerance (in addition to being a misleading vividness fallacy trotted out way too much) isn't a federal law. There are 13,000 school districts in this country. How many have zero tolerance policies? I don't know which is why I am asking..
Note that the feds are telling school districts to ease up. That says more than you think in that the federal government has far less control over what happens in schools. The state government is the real power with each school district more or less doing their own thing. I know for a fact that in my state, what happens in northern MN is quite a bit different than what happens in the metro area. Having a rifle in your truck on school grounds up there isn't a problem.
Here's what I don't get...you guys are all states rights folks, right? So when these stories about zero tolerance comes up, it's not really any of your business what school districts in other states do. California? Absolutely.
As far as the seemingly never ending straw man about me liking every government regulation, I've stated many times that the manufacturing sector is over regulated while the financial sector is under regulated. These guys, for example,
highlight some of the problems that need to be corrected. I don't agree with everything they say but action is clearly needed as is evident by the excessive cost.
So, what are a few federal laws that you would like to see gone? Why? What would the fallout be?
I was more interested in hearing about some specific federal government laws that you'd like to see go away.
1968 Gun Control Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and anything else that stinks of police power and not the regulation of commerce amongst the states or with other nations.
That says more than you think in that the federal government has far less control over what happens in schools.
It should be zero. Schools are the classic example of a local/state concern.
I agree with you on the CSA. All drugs should be immediately legalized, taxed and the power of regulation turned over to the states. Now, I'm not saying that heroin should be sold over the counter but if you want it, get a script. So, that's one more federal law I don't like.
As far the GCA, that's great that you want to get rid of it but what would you put in its place? By abolishing the GCA, the selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals would no longer be prohibited. Don't you think that would be a problem?
All the states have their own gun laws - some would be more restrictive (e.g. CA, IL) and some less (e.g. TX, VT).
Same with "drugs".
And just a quick kick in the ass - Obama and Holder are lying that they need Congress to re-sched marjiuana; that is an Executive power to decide, not statutory. Unfortunately, too many people are so stoned on their love for Obama to notice and say something.
I'll agree that the president is full of shit on drugs (this makes two sharp critiques from me on the president, the other being his failure on assaults on women in the military). Remember them and stop straw manning.
I understand he has a different view of drugs being black but it doesn't excuse his inability to think outside of the box on this issue. He is married to the idea that drugs have destroyed black culture when it's actually prohibition that did. If drugs were legalized and taxed, there would be more money to fund social programs and education that would benefit blacks.
28 comments:
Occupations like working at the Obama white house.
Or working at Senator Dick Durbins office.
Or working as a host on the morning show on msnbc.
Multi millionaire Elizabeth lets her own brother live on $13,200 a year. Just repeating her own words to you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/elizabeth-warren-social-security_n_3053355.html
So, you are asserting that there isn't any pay discrimination between men and women in the work place?
There is pay discrimination between men, between women and between men and women - based on education, skills, experience, etc.
The Dems are lying their asses off about this and the ignorant just trot along behind.
Markadelphia, I notice you give yourself a pass from explaining why democrats behave in the same ways that you decry. You have a long history on here of asking republicans about their hypocrisy, why don't you step up and tell us why female staffers in the white house make less than the male staffers do.
btw, if this is an example of the house candidates your party is putting up, there is very little to worry about if one is a republican.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00T9Vhj8NMc
We can discuss the evidence you brought to light and whether or not it is valid after you answer my question, Rob. If you don't think there is pay discrimination between men and women, there's no point in proceeding further.
Hey M, FUCK YOU, you Demo toadie.
As far as the White House paying women less (giving exactly the same reasons businesses say the differential exists), the fish rots from the head first. In his younger days, it's rumoured that Obama paid female prostitutes 80 cents for every dollar he paid male prostitutes... ;-)
markadelphia, has anyone ever told you in real life that you have control issues? Since you're so concerned about setting the terms of the debate, I do think there is pay discrimination between men and women, I never asserted otherwise. Whether or not the evidence is valid? So the accuracy of the numbers don't matter to you, we all know that what you focus on is if the person who says something has the right cred to say it.
, I do think there is pay discrimination between men and women
Good. So do I. Now, what should we do about it?
As to your evidence, you presented a Non Sequitur about Elizabeth Warren (how do you know for certain that she doesn't give her brother money, btw?) and a Non Sequitur about Fox News and a Democratic Congressional candidate. Where is your evidence about "occupations at the White House?" "Senator Dick Durbin's office?" Let's see some non biased sources, please.
Still attempting to set the terms and conditions that have to be met before you will respond? Have to have everything presented to you on a silver platter? You won’t address it on your own because it doesn't fit with your preferred narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5KRgxQyrb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy6y0pYu73c
Are Jay Carney, cbs and cnn conservative enough for you to continue to stall in offering up your opinion? Jay Carney admitted the pay gap exists.
What do we do about it? Just pass more laws! You think that Washington DC can and wants to fix this, which is laughable. Your side loses a campaign issue if the gap doesn't exist, therefore the people you elect need the gap.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/senate-dems-remain-on-front-lines-in-war-on-women/
Congratulations, Rob. You just made an argument and somewhat left out logical fallacies:)
Question (and I don't know the answer)-is the president in charge of setting his salary and the White House staff salary? Or does that come from a budget passed by Congress? Let's assume for now that he is in charge of that.
So, there is a pay gap between women and men and it exists in the White House as well. Why is it then a bad thing that the president wants to correct this and even do better himself? Reflecting and changing is part of being a Democrat and a liberal. I realize this may seem alien to you but it's what they do. When criticism is aimed at Republicans, it's because they don't want to do anything, just as you note here with the "just pass more laws" meme. That's not an answer. Whenever there is a problem, you guys respond with, "Do nothing, government because you always fuck it up." Really?
There is certainly room for criticism on the White House for this (as well as being completely limp in the face of the rising assaults on women in the military) but at least they have a plan on the table to fix this, even themselves. Why don't you?
Whenever there is a problem
There's the problem right there Captain Obvious. Not everything you believe to be a problem is a problem firstly, and secondly, even when there is a problem that doesn't automatically mean govt can fix it. In some cases yes, and in some, no - but you never fucking see the distinction. To you and every other statist lib/prog-tard - every fucking thing that makes your sphincter twitch needs a new law/policy/program. Naturally you (or should I say the voice in your head) will interpret what I just wrote as COMPLETE HATRED OF ALL GOVT.
Please fuck yourself with a broken mop handle when you hear that voice, m'kay?
Hmm....
To you and every other statist lib/prog-tard - every fucking thing that makes your sphincter twitch needs a new law/policy/program. Naturally you (or should I say the voice in your head) will interpret what I just wrote as COMPLETE HATRED OF ALL GOVT.
juxtaposed with...
Well, first you commie fucktards would have to change the law and that is not likely to happen, but if you somehow manage it, I and many others will fight.
I can barely tolerate you leftist/statists as it stands.
from this...
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2014/04/name-changed-to-protect-guilty.html
Do you guys go to a special school to learn how to read this (logical fallacy filled) script?
"Voices in my head" indeed:)
In case I wasn't clear enough - the jagged end of the broken mop handle.
What Juris Imprudent said in his first paragraph in the 9:31 post, without the cussing. You think the govt can solve way too many problems,
So the pay gap existing in the private sector is evidence of discrimination but when it exists in your white house it is seen as an opportunity for Obama to better himself?
The pay gap has always existed and it always will exist, and that is due to women making choices (like my wife did when we had children) to scale back and work part time, among other decisions that affect the numbers as a whole. But it is an election year and you need to convince people of their victimhood to get them out to the polls. Keep it up.
The problem isn't that I think the government should solve too many problems. It's that you think they should solve too few. This is largely due to the control freak mindset that conservatives have (which I think actually hides a secret authoritarian mindset).
As to your last paragraph, blaming the victim never really works out, dude. It's not an answer and you know, honestly, what is worse than the alleged victim culture? Anti-victim culture...made up of people who lack the ability to reflect and who themselves are just as big of whiners, continually claiming victimhood all the time:)
This is largely due to the control freak mindset that conservatives have
Projection is such a bad habit for you.
I want to let people figure out how to solve things are their own and that makes me a control freak? Whereas you can't stand people doing things you disagree with and want the govt to stop them and you are not a control freak?
What color is the sky in your world?
(which I think actually hides a secret authoritarian mindset).
I am sorry if I must force you to be free, but really, it is for your own good.
So, freedom is dying, eh juris? Tell me...how were your freedoms curtailed today? What did the federal government do to you today or event this week that has seriously impeded your freedom?
I want to let people figure out how to solve things are their own and that makes me a control freak? Whereas you can't stand people doing things you disagree with and want the govt to stop them and you are not a control freak?
Where do you draw the line on this, juris? This seems an awful lot like anarchy to me. You say you think some laws are necessary but many aren't. Fine. Which ones do we keep and which ones do we throw out? Of the latter category, provide some real world and current examples of doing without these laws were more beneficial to a country. Just three or four will do.
Tell me...how were your freedoms curtailed today? What did the federal government do to you today or event this week that has seriously impeded your freedom?
Let's go back to exactly what we were talking about. Your contention was that taking guns away (or talking someone out of them - it all depends on which way the wind is blowing between your ears) from some people does not diminish freedom.
Freedom is diminished not just because mine is lessened, at this moment - which is exactly why I alluded to Martin Niemöller. Freedom was horribly diminished under Jim Crow even though it had no direct impact on me in the slightest. You apparently believe that as long as you aren't terribly inconvenienced (except of course by those evil people with Centerpoint/RMR) that freedom must be flourishing.
And then you accuse me of being a control freak and self centered. If you were any kind of decent human being you would look at yourself in the mirror and be embarrassed. You aren't though, are you - not even a little?
This seems an awful lot like anarchy to me.
Well, there is one more thing you don't understand very well but have a very strong opinion about.
Fine. I don't understand. Explain it to me. Which laws stay and which ones go? Of the latter, what real world examples can you provide that show inprovement in freedom?
Fine. I don't understand. Explain it to me.
Thank you, it is really nice to hear [read] you say that. I would have a great deal less hostility toward you if you could say this more often.
I don't have the time right this moment, I'll try to come back to it in the next day.
Let me take a small example to illustrate the over-all concept.
Your school is governed by a set of formal rules & policy, no? Is there a formal rule or policy for every single interaction that can be imagined? Probably not, and the multitude of "non-serious" conflicts that might arise are not resolved via either rule or policy or adjudication by management. Instead, those are dealt with by the individuals involved - possibly with some outside assistance but without resorting to formal procedures and/or sanctions. That is basis for anarchy - the resolution of disputes without resorting to the centralized power (i.e. coercion) of govt.
So you already live on the edge of anarchy - where people resolve disputes without involving centralized, formal authority.
The question is always about how much latitude do such non-coercive situations have. There is no such thing as all or nothing. Not all disputes can be handled this way (save in the imaginations of hard-core anarchists), nor can every aspect of life be regulated (save in the delusions of totalitarian theorists).
I've asked you repeatedly about examples of govt over-reach, and you rarely if ever concede that such is possible - that there isn't a problem that govt cannot solve. On the occasion that you do see a bad govt action you are quick to blame the individual not the institution (which ironically is exactly the opposite of what you do when you critique free market capitalism).
Now, let's look at a school policy which I believe you have criticized - "zero tolerance". Why is zero tolerance a bad idea? It really is the ultimate way of sending a message isn't it? And there are many who believe that is the purpose of govt and rules and so forth - to send a message, a stern and unbending reproach to prevent some offensive behavior. Zero tolerance really is the bureaucratic ideal, since no person can be held responsible for issuing such a harsh response when it might not really be warranted.
Zero tolerance is about as perfect a counterpoint to anarchy as can be imagined.
Questions?
I was more interested in hearing about some specific federal government laws that you'd like to see go away. Zero tolerance (in addition to being a misleading vividness fallacy trotted out way too much) isn't a federal law. There are 13,000 school districts in this country. How many have zero tolerance policies? I don't know which is why I am asking..
Check this out...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/08/260904329/ease-up-on-no-tolerance-policies-u-s-agencies-tell-schools
Note that the feds are telling school districts to ease up. That says more than you think in that the federal government has far less control over what happens in schools. The state government is the real power with each school district more or less doing their own thing. I know for a fact that in my state, what happens in northern MN is quite a bit different than what happens in the metro area. Having a rifle in your truck on school grounds up there isn't a problem.
Here's what I don't get...you guys are all states rights folks, right? So when these stories about zero tolerance comes up, it's not really any of your business what school districts in other states do. California? Absolutely.
As far as the seemingly never ending straw man about me liking every government regulation, I've stated many times that the manufacturing sector is over regulated while the financial sector is under regulated. These guys, for example,
http://www.nam.org/Issues/Legal-and-Regulatory/Manufacturing-Regulation.aspx
highlight some of the problems that need to be corrected. I don't agree with everything they say but action is clearly needed as is evident by the excessive cost.
So, what are a few federal laws that you would like to see gone? Why? What would the fallout be?
I was more interested in hearing about some specific federal government laws that you'd like to see go away.
1968 Gun Control Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and anything else that stinks of police power and not the regulation of commerce amongst the states or with other nations.
That says more than you think in that the federal government has far less control over what happens in schools.
It should be zero. Schools are the classic example of a local/state concern.
I agree with you on the CSA. All drugs should be immediately legalized, taxed and the power of regulation turned over to the states. Now, I'm not saying that heroin should be sold over the counter but if you want it, get a script. So, that's one more federal law I don't like.
As far the GCA, that's great that you want to get rid of it but what would you put in its place? By abolishing the GCA, the selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals would no longer be prohibited. Don't you think that would be a problem?
what would you put in its place
All the states have their own gun laws - some would be more restrictive (e.g. CA, IL) and some less (e.g. TX, VT).
Same with "drugs".
And just a quick kick in the ass - Obama and Holder are lying that they need Congress to re-sched marjiuana; that is an Executive power to decide, not statutory. Unfortunately, too many people are so stoned on their love for Obama to notice and say something.
I'll agree that the president is full of shit on drugs (this makes two sharp critiques from me on the president, the other being his failure on assaults on women in the military). Remember them and stop straw manning.
I understand he has a different view of drugs being black but it doesn't excuse his inability to think outside of the box on this issue. He is married to the idea that drugs have destroyed black culture when it's actually prohibition that did. If drugs were legalized and taxed, there would be more money to fund social programs and education that would benefit blacks.
Post a Comment