If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"   (hotair.com) divider line 355
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, illegal operation, global dimming, Mr. Roboto, blah blah, Robert Duvall, abortions, DNC  
•       •       •

6717 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Aug 2012 at 9:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



355 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 12:52:50 PM

lennavan: Fart_Machine: The person who initially brought up the argument on late term abortions stated they were killing children. Lighten up Francis.

The person was a retard. That doesn't make the argument itself retarded. Read it again without associating me with the killing babies tard:

That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?


I didn't associate you personally. I was using the term "you're" as a collective term for anyone who uses the "baby killing" arguments.

As to your comments I already answered them. Beliefs are subjective and subject to emotion which is why this debate will never have a satisfactory answer for some people.
 
2012-08-24 12:54:00 PM

Lando Lincoln: cman: Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?

You really don't think that Romney has held every single stance on the abortion issue at one time?


I farking hate Romney
 
2012-08-24 12:55:56 PM

cman: Lando Lincoln: cman: Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?

You really don't think that Romney has held every single stance on the abortion issue at one time?

I farking hate Romney


Well he hates your poor broke ass, too.
 
2012-08-24 12:58:53 PM

Fart_Machine: As to your comments I already answered them. Beliefs are subjective and subject to emotion which is why this debate will never have a satisfactory answer for some people.


Your original point was:

Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

I'm telling you bringing up late term abortions gets at the logic behind your beliefs because these beliefs are rooted not just in emotion but also in logic. I even gave you the example of the logic "it's her body, her choice." That's not emotional, that's logical. Sure you cannot separate out the emotions but to simply dismiss that entire line of argumentation as solely emotion-based and dishonest is lazy and dishonest yourself.
 
2012-08-24 12:59:01 PM

PreMortem: Ann Coulter book pop up. FU

Never a HotAir link again.


This story wouldn't have been greenlit if it didn't have an Approved Source.
 
2012-08-24 01:10:13 PM

skilbride: LasersHurt: So "Math you don't agree with" is "bad math" now? And your idiotic anecdote is supposed to matter how?

It's not just math I don't agree with. You want to talk paycheck fairness, you compare people in the same job, with the same education, and same experience, and see if they get the same compensation. You don't say as, "Women as a whole are making 20% less than men" and ignore the fact that they are working 20% less than men or taking jobs that on average pay 20% less than men. That's bad math, misleading statistics, and bunk.


...oddly enough, that has indeed occured to the researchers.
 
2012-08-24 01:11:04 PM

Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.


This, it's a nice change.
 
2012-08-24 01:11:55 PM

magusdevil:

Spontaneous child deaths occur all the time, we shouldn't investigate them?

cameroncrazy1984: Why does one have to be treated differently or separately from the other?


sprawl15: Either it's considered a person or it's not. What you're advocating is a weird pseudo-person state where a case of abortion is the only situation where it's considered a separate biological entity.


I am advocating nothing on this aspect of the issue. I see your point, but I don't believe it is necessary to deal with it before dealing with the first part. If a fetus is or is not a human, and when, must be settled before the implications of that decision are clear. Otherwise, you're arguing backward from the desired outcome and trying to make your princples fit your solution.

Also, we do investigate some fetus deaths currently, and in some jurisdictions a crime can be charged against someone for injuring a fetus separately from the injury to the mother, so there already is precedent for that position. And we could certainly deal with each fetus death as we do other deaths: the circumstances surrounding the death determine the resources devoted to investigating it. You may not have much experience with death, but in most cases, there's no police involvement at all.
 
2012-08-24 01:14:44 PM

Galloping Galoshes: see your point, but I don't believe it is necessary to deal with it before dealing with the first part. If a fetus is or is not a human


Just so you know, before you can deal with anything you have to deal with your terminology. This is one of the few discussions where words are very NOT interchangable. Word choice matters because words have meaning and very specific meaning is critical to the discussion.

Why did you choose the word human there? Because that's fundamentally different than the word person.
 
2012-08-24 01:14:49 PM

lennavan: Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?

Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.

Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.

And?

You're right, so I would never draw any retarded farking conclusions like "all 25 week old fetuses are viable." What exactly did you think you are saying here?


That's what the Supreme Court did.
You're reaching for the earliest date of viability, right? The only way to determine that is to find the latest date that a fetus is not viable.
 
2012-08-24 01:15:32 PM

lennavan: Why did you choose the word human there? Because that's fundamentally different than the word person.


Lack of precision.
 
2012-08-24 01:15:52 PM
Let me summarize this debate.

tabbycatmusicarchives.com

Take religion out of it and make it about respecting unborn life, women's health and reproductive rights and you might have a better chance of fixing the problem like the rest of the industrialized world.
 
2012-08-24 01:17:03 PM

McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.


Soledad O'Brien had a really good grill session the other day with Spicer. Maybe things are heading in the right direction for journalism finally.
 
2012-08-24 01:19:28 PM

Galloping Galoshes: If a fetus is or is not a human, and when, must be settled before the implications of that decision are clear.


I agree.

The point, though is that at any given point where abortion is outlawed because the fetus is considered a person, all protections need apply. If one says people can't abort a 20 week fetus because there's a chance of viability and thus we're considering it a person, then a miscarriage of a 20 week fetus should be investigated as an accidental death.

Galloping Galoshes: I am advocating nothing on this aspect of the issue.


You are, as long as you have a separate standard for abortion as other cases.

Galloping Galoshes: You may not have much experience with death, but in most cases, there's no police involvement at all.


In the case of fetal death, potential negligence of the mother plays a very important role. A woman can't accidentally kill her four year old child by herself riding a rollercoaster, yet she could kill her 20 week fetus by doing the same. The physical connection implies a much stronger responsibility.
 
2012-08-24 01:20:09 PM

Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?

Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.

Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.

And?

You're right, so I would never draw any retarded farking conclusions like "all 25 week old fetuses are viable." What exactly did you think you are saying here?

That's what the Supreme Court did.


And? The SCOTUS is not always right. See: Citizen's United.

Galloping Galoshes: You're reaching for the earliest date of viability, right? The only way to determine that is to find the latest date that a fetus is not viable.


And I'm telling you the earliest date of viability for each individual fetus is unknownable without testing it. You can know the earliest AVERAGE date of viability. But average is not good enough. You can know the earliest date of viability within 99.9% confidence. But that's not good enough. The fundamental belief here is viability means you're a person and so aborting a person is murder. There is no acceptable non-zero murder rate. You think I'm trying to define a specific fetal age, I'm not. Shiat, if nothing else given how inaccurate the age measurements are, that'd be really stupid. I'm telling you I would say the only legal form of abortion after 20 weeks is c-section and a 20+ week c-section abortion would be the doctor c-sectioning the fetus out and turning it over to the hospital. If it lives, it was viable, if it dies, it was not. That way you get 100% of the fetuses.
 
2012-08-24 01:20:37 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Dr Dreidel: that has historically had horrific ramifications for everyone.

Your absolutism is misplaced and incorrect.


Wait, what? I don't mean that every single person in the world was worse off for it, I mean that there was probably not a single person more than 3 hops removed from someone affected by the abortion bans - women being slaves to biology, or who had their insides torn up by a med student with good intentions and a scalpel, or who risked life and uterus to have the 13th kid at age 43.

Dr Dreidel: families not having any options to limit the number of kids they have while also retaining the freedom to bone as they please.

Abortion as contraception I disagree with. Take some responsibility for your actions.


Good thing that doesn't really happen (unless you count RU486 or Plan B as "abortion as contraception") with any significant frequency. Oh, and also, do you mean "multiple abortions rather than take the pill" or "I didn't want to be pregnant and I can't get Plan B from the Catholic-owned CVS down the block, so now I have to ask you for a D&E"?

Dr Dreidel: 1) Until someone can logically and scientifically equate a clump of undifferentiated cells implanted (or almost-implanted) in a uterine wall with an infant child, they are different things. We can treat them differently, as we do with under-18 and over-18 (I realize this is orders of magnitude above allowing them to buy cigarrettes).

Until science can tell us when a fetus is a child, I would go the other way.


They look different, they act different, and one has differentiated cells whereas the other does not. Ball's in your court to prove similarity now. (DNA isn't good enough, as you can't tell age, and dead people still have some living DNA for a while.)

Dr Dreidel: So long as SCOTUS says abortion's legal, it's legal (federally speaking). Stop fighting this battle - you've lost

"So long as" implies that change is possible, so people won't stop fighting. Also, they won't stop just because their opponents tell them to.


SCOTUS isn't liable to reverse themselves, and your GOP allies don't seem to care enough to do anything to make abortion illegal when they pull the levers of power. Keep fighting the battle if you like, but it's Quixotic. You're not likely to win at the federal level.

Better?

Dr Dreidel: Your religion does not get to tell me how I live. If my religion says that I must stone adultresses (and assuming you're a Muslim, Jew or Christian, it does), why keep me from carrying out what my religion demands? If my faith says that your giving blood is akin to murder, can I ban you from giving blood?

You object to my imposing my religious tenets on you. However, my position on abortion does not spring from my religion. Frankly, I'm not even sure what my religion's position is on the subject, or if it has a single position. So this argument falls from a faulty assumption.


If your religion says abortion is murder or is wrong, don't get one. If your belief that abortion should be illegal stems from your religion's teachings, my country's laws would like a word. If your belief that abortion is wrong/should be illegal are not based in religion...I r confuze. It's rare to meet a "pro-lifer" who isn't basing their attitude on some alleged word of god.

Dr Dreidel: Because people who don't believe abortion is murder have rights, too.

Everyone has rights, and they frequently conflict. I understand your arguments (well, all but the one) and I don't claim they aren't valid. Some woman carrying a baby, that she doesn't want, to term is not good for her, and probably not for the child either. In the case of a rape, the pregnancy will be a horrible reminder of what happened. However, I see the child as an innocent who shouldn't lose his/her life over the bad act of someone else. There are options other than abortion. So between the two options, I err on the side of life for the child. I see it a bit like capital punishment. Yes, the criminal that's killed will never commit a crime again, but what about the innocent man? And our criminal justice system is so good at convicting the innocent that I just can't support capital punishment right now.


She is not carrying a "baby", she's carrying a "fetus". Words mean things. I realize that they're similar (to you, identical?), but in point of fact, they are not. One needs connections to another's body just to keep growing, the other does not.

Often, the fetus she is carrying, when she decides to abort, has no developed nervous system. Even more often than that, the fetus is dependent on mom for oxygen and food - you're compelling mom to keep the kid alive (including all the health care costs she's on the hook for), abstain from alcohol/smoking (legal, even for pregnant folks - as horrible as they are to fetal development) and the physical misery of pregnancy. What other labor are we allowed to compel from people whose actions we deem legal? Can we force the men who knock up women to turn over part of their paychecks for fetal support? Do we make such womens' prenatal care free (after all, we wouldn't want a "child" to die of neglect, would we)? How long after the kid is born does this stop - immediately? Do we give the kid healthcare and food and such until they're 18? (Are you some kind of socialist?)

There are options other than abortion, but none that remove the risks and damages from a mother's body/life. I am pro-choice simply because leaving these decisions in the hands of women and the doctors they see is the only option that makes any sense for a free country.
 
2012-08-24 01:26:38 PM

Dr Dreidel: There are options other than abortion, but none that remove the risks and damages from a mother's body/life. I am pro-choice simply because leaving these decisions in the hands of women and the doctors they see is the only option that makes any sense for a free country.


I'm pro-choice up until a point for a very similar reason. Your explanation has left out consideration for the rights of the fetus. This is where you use the 39 week old fetus example - are you okay with a woman aborting a fetus that as far as all medical science can tell is perfectly healthy? I'm not, therefore I'm pro-choice up until a point.
 
2012-08-24 01:27:00 PM
Here is another Debbie Wasserman Shultz gem.

CNN will get more viewing from me if they keep up calling policical types out on their BS like this. That is what the media is supposed to do, not just give out free airtime.
 
2012-08-24 01:31:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.


You still didn't prove me wrong. That number doesn't account for education and experience. It's unadjusted - which you skipped over at the top of your same link.

Women who choose the same education and career path as men make the same as men - in fact, sometimes even more.

Again, for those of you who failed to read it the first time.
 
2012-08-24 01:32:47 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: ...oddly enough, that has indeed occured to the researchers.


Yes - it did occur to the researchers, which is why you have adjusted and unadjusted numbers. The problem is most people are using the unadjusted numbers to justify their cause - and the majority of people are drinking the koolaide too much to research further into it.
 
2012-08-24 01:33:12 PM

Dr Dreidel: Can we force the men who knock up women to turn over part of their paychecks for fetal support? Do we make such womens' prenatal care free (after all, we wouldn't want a "child" to die of neglect, would we)? How long after the kid is born does this stop - immediately? Do we give the kid healthcare and food and such until they're 18? (Are you some kind of socialist?)


Pretty sure that most, if not all, of these already happen.
 
2012-08-24 01:36:23 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Beyond the point I made earlier - that the Paycheck Fairness Act was never passed - I have to say, it's impressive that both you and your boyfriend are in 'project management.'

That's like one gay lion tamer meeting another gay lion tamer. What are the odds??

/RIP Greg


Sorry - that was a misspeak on my part, I meant the equal pay that Lyndon Johnson put in effect and the LL Act.

Listen, I'm against redundant laws in all forms - for instance the ERA. I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me. I hate women who constantly bring it up.

Also, project management is subjective when your company is only 60 people big. Really, we're development and resource ranglers and business analysts. We all have technical experience in development as well.
 
2012-08-24 01:38:00 PM

skilbride: I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me.


Is that you Ainsley Hayes?
 
2012-08-24 01:38:56 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: skilbride: I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me.

Is that you Ainsley Hayes?


????
 
2012-08-24 01:41:00 PM

skilbride: The_Six_Fingered_Man: skilbride: I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me.

Is that you Ainsley Hayes?

????


"Ainsley: It's humiliating. A new ammendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man. I am mortified to discover there is reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country, I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old white men. The same article fourteen that protects you protects me and I went to law school just to make sure."
 
2012-08-24 01:41:22 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Is that you Ainsley Hayes?


I live outside Washington DC - you wouldn't believe how many times you're at a bar and the subject of the Equal Rights Amendment comes up and have a travesty it was that it never got passed.

Apparently people here like beating a dead horse. It was a novel idea in 1920 or whatever, but right now it's just useless.
 
2012-08-24 01:42:30 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: "Ainsley: It's humiliating. A new ammendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man. I am mortified to discover there is reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country, I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old white men. The same article fourteen that protects you protects me and I went to law school just to make sure."


LOL My personal hero! :)

(Although, she does ignore that when it was proposed it did kinda make sense because we didn't have equal rights... lol)
 
2012-08-24 01:47:03 PM

Galloping Galoshes: I am advocating nothing on this aspect of the issue. I see your point, but I don't believe it is necessary to deal with it before dealing with the first part. If a fetus is or is not a human, and when, must be settled before the implications of that decision are clear. Otherwise, you're arguing backward from the desired outcome and trying to make your princples fit your solution.


This part is meaningless because the moment you declare that the entity a person, the implications that sprawl15 mentioned are immediately clear - in fact, they're the conclusions that must be reached if you actually intend to treat them as persons are treated.

This "We'll just do the 'person' part first and figure out the rest later" approach can't work without some deliberately imposed disconnect from conventional jurisprudence, as well as moral and ethical reasoning.
 
2012-08-24 01:52:35 PM

urbangirl: But if the party platform doesn't matter and has no real affect on policy, why do they bother to create one?


So uneducated voters will see the platform, agree with it and vote straight ticket without bothering to learn about the candidates.
 
2012-08-24 01:59:07 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dr Dreidel: Can we force the men who knock up women to turn over part of their paychecks for fetal support? Do we make such womens' prenatal care free (after all, we wouldn't want a "child" to die of neglect, would we)? How long after the kid is born does this stop - immediately? Do we give the kid healthcare and food and such until they're 18? (Are you some kind of socialist?)

Pretty sure that most, if not all, of these already happen.


Really? Garnishing a soon-to-be father's wages for prenatal care is compelled (I realize I asked about the possibility, but now that I give it serious thought, it should be compelled. She's compelled to carry the kid to term, whether she wants to or not, so similarly, he must pay whether he wants to or not)? Pregnant women get free healthcare, or are you thinking specifically of POOR pregnant women? Ditto kids - I know Medicaid covers them, but why should rich people have to pay when poor people don't? Is this an entitlement, or are we affirming the value of life here? We subsidize kids' (beyond just the poors) healthcare and nutrition?

Because that's what I mean. If ALL kids must be brought to term, it seems unimaginably cruel to not be sure that all of them are provided for.

// I guess I can go along with unsubsidized care for rich folks, but so long as Chester Worthington IV's eldest daughter will always find a "sympathetic doctor" who can handle her case of "mono" discreetly, we won't have to worry
 
2012-08-24 02:01:25 PM

skilbride: God Is My Co-Pirate: ...oddly enough, that has indeed occured to the researchers.

Yes - it did occur to the researchers, which is why you have adjusted and unadjusted numbers. The problem is most people are using the unadjusted numbers to justify their cause - and the majority of people are drinking the koolaide too much to research further into it.


It would also be nice if newspapers employed more proper science journalists, who know what studies are really saying. Nonetheless, the sexism is real, and I'm getting sick of it.
 
2012-08-24 02:02:47 PM
Cooper is one of the two people left on CNN who isn't appallingly stupid. DWS does a disservice to those who share her viewpoint by being mentally unprepared to discuss it, as even a modicum of preparation would have provide her with the exact facts she needed to support what she was trying and failing to say.
 
2012-08-24 02:07:42 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Whatever you need to say to keep your child killing heart warm at night.



Shiat like this is always helpful to the discussion...

/But he started it!
 
2012-08-24 02:14:13 PM

skilbride: cameroncrazy1984: Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.

You still didn't prove me wrong. That number doesn't account for education and experience. It's unadjusted - which you skipped over at the top of your same link.

Women who choose the same education and career path as men make the same as men - in fact, sometimes even more.

Again, for those of you who failed to read it the first time.


From your link:

"Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women - even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area - are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide. "

Oops. Looks like you need to read more carefully.
 
2012-08-24 02:18:05 PM

Russky: McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.

Soledad O'Brien had a really good grill session the other day with Spicer. Maybe things are heading in the right direction for journalism finally.


Just don't watch the Situation Room. That piece of crap should be stripped off the air. Wolf Blitzer and that jackass Cafertty make my skin crawl. I want to punch them both in the throat...hard. Blitzer is the definition of softball interview. And Cafertty reminds me of a young Andy Rooney only less topical and more annoying.
 
2012-08-24 02:22:40 PM

Galloping Galoshes: sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: Abortion as contraception I disagree with.

Most people would disagree with it. The question, however, is legality.

Galloping Galoshes: Until science can tell us when a fetus is a child, I would go the other way.

You really think there's going to be a scientific quorum on when a fetus gains a soul? What the fark is wrong with you?

No, I don't. That doesn't affect my argument. Unless one can say with certainty when a fetus becomes a person, I would err on the side of assuming at conception. Type 1 error vs type 2 error.


AH, so unless one can say for certain that a cow doesn't have a soul, you would assume what regarding McDonald's business practices?
 
2012-08-24 02:26:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: cameroncrazy1984: Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.

You still didn't prove me wrong. That number doesn't account for education and experience. It's unadjusted - which you skipped over at the top of your same link.

Women who choose the same education and career path as men make the same as men - in fact, sometimes even more.

Again, for those of you who failed to read it the first time.

From your link:

"Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women - even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area - are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide. "

Oops. Looks like you need to read more carefully.


During 2010, median weekly earnings for female full-time workers were $669, compared with $824 per week for men, a gender wage ratio of 81.2 percent (Table 1; or a gender wage gap of 18.8 percent). Women's median earnings are lower than men's in nearly all occupations, whether they work in occupations predominantly done by women, occupations predominantly done by men, or occupations with a more even mix of men and women. Four of ten women (41.1 percent) work in traditionally female occupations, and close to five of ten male workers (49.3 percent) work in traditionally male occupations.1
Typically, male dominated occupations pay more than female dominated occupations at similar skill levels (Hegewisch et al. 2010). PDF Warning
 
2012-08-24 02:29:18 PM

skilbride: Salt Lick Steady: Beyond the point I made earlier - that the Paycheck Fairness Act was never passed - I have to say, it's impressive that both you and your boyfriend are in 'project management.'

That's like one gay lion tamer meeting another gay lion tamer. What are the odds??

/RIP Greg

Sorry - that was a misspeak on my part, I meant the equal pay that Lyndon Johnson put in effect and the LL Act.

Listen, I'm against redundant laws in all forms - for instance the ERA. I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me. I hate women who constantly bring it up.

Also, project management is subjective when your company is only 60 people big. Really, we're development and resource ranglers and business analysts. We all have technical experience in development as well.


First, I don't care what you do qua project manager. I think you failed to see the joke.

Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act would not be redundant to the Equal Pay Act. The very reason it's necessary is due to interpretation of the EPA by federal judges that essentially make the Act irrelevant and ineffective for many women.
 
2012-08-24 02:35:11 PM

Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.


I agree completely. Thank you!
 
2012-08-24 02:43:49 PM

Cythraul: HotIgneous Intruder: Anderson in the Pooper? No way. He thinks he's in a personal cotillion.

/Nothing like a log cabin pretty boy to liven things up.
//And that full-size pop-up ad for the Coulterbeast's new book, "Raped" was to die for.

Anderson is a Log Cabin Republican?


and a pretty boy?
 
2012-08-24 03:37:53 PM

lennavan: Fart_Machine: As to your comments I already answered them. Beliefs are subjective and subject to emotion which is why this debate will never have a satisfactory answer for some people.

Your original point was:

Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

I'm telling you bringing up late term abortions gets at the logic behind your beliefs because these beliefs are rooted not just in emotion but also in logic. I even gave you the example of the logic "it's her body, her choice." That's not emotional, that's logical. Sure you cannot separate out the emotions but to simply dismiss that entire line of argumentation as solely emotion-based and dishonest is lazy and dishonest yourself.


Where is the logical response as to when life begins? And do you want to claim that late term abortions are the dominant form of abortion? Bringing this up is meant to provoke an emotional response and is a bogus argument.
 
2012-08-24 03:47:03 PM
How about we say viable embryo's can't be aborted as long as they have a sponser. You can't abort the child if someone is willing to adopt it upon birth.

I'd love to see how many people who are against abortion would actually step up to be affected by the law.

I'm betting a lot of abortions would be approved if the alternative is you have to take the child.
 
2012-08-24 04:02:11 PM
Here they go dragging out this issue again... must be election year because all the tards on all sides come out hooting and hollaring about an issue that isn't changing.

Let's discuss their hairstyles... that would at least be more interesting.
 
2012-08-24 04:11:13 PM

rdalton: How about we say viable embryo's can't be aborted as long as they have a sponser. You can't abort the child if someone is willing to adopt it upon birth.

I'd love to see how many people who are against abortion would actually step up to be affected by the law.

I'm betting a lot of abortions would be approved if the alternative is you have to take the child.


Throw in that they have to pay for all prenatal care and financially support the biological mother during the pregnancy, too.
 
2012-08-24 04:11:17 PM

red5ish: He has said he supports Roe v Wade and he has said he would gladly pass a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions.


I'm as liberal as they get, but this isn't actually a contradiction of any kind. He supports Roe vs. Wade in that he believes that it was a correct and valid interpretation of the constitution as it applied in that case, but he also doesn't like the outcome and wants to change the constitution to fit his desired result.

In fact, this is probably the most valid, nuanced, and reasonable stand one could take on the issue if you disagree with abortions. You acknowledge that by current law they should be legal while working to change the current law. How is this flip-flopping?
 
2012-08-24 08:39:03 PM

Russky: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

This, it's a nice change.

Overfiend: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

I agree completely. Thank you!


You folks, and anyone else that agrees should take a few minutes, head over to the CNN contact page, abd drop them a quick email to let them know that you appreciate it.
 
2012-08-24 08:50:57 PM

Krymson Tyde: Russky: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

This, it's a nice change.
Overfiend: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

I agree completely. Thank you!

You folks, and anyone else that agrees should take a few minutes, head over to the CNN contact page, abd drop them a quick email to let them know that you appreciate it.


I actually did right after I posted that.
 
2012-08-24 09:24:20 PM

Overfiend: Krymson Tyde: Russky: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

This, it's a nice change.
Overfiend: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

I agree completely. Thank you!

You folks, and anyone else that agrees should take a few minutes, head over to the CNN contact page, abd drop them a quick email to let them know that you appreciate it.

I actually did right after I posted that.


They've gotten at least 3 emails from Farkers today, whatever that's worth.
 
2012-08-24 11:39:35 PM

cman: Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?


You see anyone in the thread defending her? I'm not. Shiatty journalism is shiatty journalism. We don't need that associated with us.
 
Ehh
2012-08-25 12:31:56 AM

Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.


I heard Romney snubbed the American press at the Olympics in London. Piers Morgan lobbing cotton balls and that was it. Maybe the American press is actually going to get some payback. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
 
Displayed 50 of 355 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report