Ask Me Help Desk - True or false?

Back to this debate ? I thought this was about the canard charge about the Republican war on everything. The reason the Obots trumped up this phony'war on women' stuff is because the President is losing support from his 2008 base almost across the board.
What he sees is that in 2008 he had an overwhelming majority of SINGLE women . But they really didn't show up to vote in the numbers they could've .
What this is ,is the equivant of the Rove 2004 strategery . He knew he couldn't really expand the Bush base ;so he had to do what he could to get maximum turnout from the various constituencies .
The Obama base is a hodgepodge of various special interest groups ,many of them contrived by polling data . He is catering to them and hoping that their interests don't clash too much (like his vulnerability to labor because he chooses fringe environmentalism ) .

As for the mandate that violates the churches rights ,those will be struck down when Obamacare is struck down.

But he's LeBron baby, nothin' but net for Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I saw nothing about a war on women in that bill. Equal Pay is already covered under federal statute so SB 2020 was unnecessary.

We are in a middle of a debt crisis so we do the only thing we know how to do. Cut away at the safety nets so the minorities can start to fall through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nonsense. You guys are smart enough to see the simple fact that the birth control mandate is a new, manufactured "right"

Are you guys smart enough to understand that access to birth control means less abortions?? I guess not, since you rather have a weak government that rather makes poor people have kids, and can't feed or raise them. So they starve and go to jail, stay poor, and then keep the cycle going. Lets be real rich women have abortions every day because they can afford it and don't go to doctors and hospitals poor people do. They can buy insurance, no big deal, but I was in wal mart the other day and even with a discount, this old guy couldn't afford his heart meds, so had to take less than half his prescription, and he has a pill cutter at home (I asked).

That's disgusting, almost as disgusting as being pro life, and don't give a crap about the life 10 minutes after birth. Go ahead, give Romney and his cohorts even more than they have and see what they give you for it.

Real smart right wingers, pay a guy to screw you, and elect a guy who already has, and will again. The genius of such thinking doesn't escape me, but makes me wonder what was so good about slavery that the right volunteers for it? Begs even?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

We are in a middle of a debt crisis so we do the only thing we know how to do. Cut away at the safety nets so the minorities can start to fall through.

Genius!!

Nah Tut . The law was redundent since the Federal laws cover these type of cases at least as well as the State one did . In fact ;this law went into effect in 2009 ,and there have yet to be a single case filed under the state law . Now why is that ? Could it be that those evil corporate employers in WI. Have a fairer and more equitable way of paying ? Or was it that there was already a means to address any grevience ? Why establish a duplicate state agency when there is already a Federal remedy... that is unless you are trying to pad the payroll of the state with a useless bureaucracy .

Now you know it takes time to catch a crook breaking the law. The greedy bast@rd know how to cover their butts. Because there are no cases yet doesn't mean there won't be. Or behind the scenes settlements. That's there MO!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

nah Tut . The law was redundent since the Federal laws cover these type of cases at least as well as the State one did . In fact ;this law went into effect in 2009 ,and there have yet to be a single case filed under the state law . Now why is that ? Could it be that those evil corporate employers in WI. have a fairer and more equitable way of paying ? Or was it that there was already a means to address any grevience ? Why establish a duplicate state agency when there is already a Federal remedy ...that is unless you are trying to pad the payroll of the state with a useless bureaucracy .

Hi Tom,

Make enough small cuts and eventually the net will be worthless.

Walker is the handmaiden of big business. The only thing big business knows is specialized types of information. If it is measurable then it is valuable. Equity and fairness are not part of the dialect because they are difficult measure and therefore of no value. Fairness is not subject to the same type of rational analysis.

The market place, or should I say global market place favours managerial elites. These elites are the ones who prosper during a economic crisis. They prosper because they reflect the absolute truth contain within the organizations specialization.

If this represents a modern version of the free market place then it is anti-democratic and anti-equality. It is security that an idealized construct affords the elites.

Tut

I don't get all this whoha over birth control, the pill has been with us for decades, doctors have been consulted, the pill prescribed. If a church wants to say to its members don't use it it is up to them but as far as health fund benefits go, put up, shut up, pay up and give up

The churches here want you to pay for inadaquate health services that they dictate for you, but the law won't let them. Our right wing wants us to pay for inadaquate insurance that our bosses dictate to us, but the law won't let them, so the right wing and the churches want to change the law, but the people are not letting them. So we wait and see what the court has to say.

Stay tuned.

Tut my eyes glaze over when I read code words like equity and fairness. All that really means in the socialist's vocabulary is wealth redistribution and quotas .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut my eyes glaze over when I read code words like equity and fairness. All that really means in the socialist's vocabulary is wealth redistribution and quotas .

That's due to your ultra-right-wing indoctrination. Others aren't scared of those words.

Not indoctrination for sure . I was raised in the public education system of the US as a committed leftist. It took years of deprogramming to get me where I'm at .

You should see a doctor for that Tom, maybe there is a cure. I mean just curious why socialism scares you guys do much, or are you still living in fear of the Russians, and Chinese?

This is 2012, not 1960! I know, you can dream can't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

...living in fear of the Russians, and Chinese?

To be fair the Chinese part is legitimate. :-)

Typical left to think that a political position opposed to theirs is an illness that needs a cure . I'm sure there is a gulag or reeduction camp you can direct me to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm sure there is a gulag or reeduction camp you can direct me to.

Hello tom:

Nahhh.. I've got a pill.

excon

As opposed to "code words" that hide a conspiracy or thinking that higher education is a another conspiracy to make people liberals? LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm sure there is a gulag or reeduction camp you can direct me to.

Six Flags Over Texas, that's where we go! Care to join us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Are you guys smart enough to understand that access to birth control means less abortions???? I guess not,

What I understand is this is a straw man argument. There is no issue with access to birth control, it's a manufactured crisis. Even Ms Fluke admitted she didn't know she could get hers for $9.00 at the local Target, a far cry from the $3000 price tag she put on it.

Which brings me back to the OP. Stop making stuff up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

We are in a middle of a debt crisis so we do the only thing we know how to do. Cut away at the safety nets so the minorities can start to fall through.

As has been pointed out twice the law was redundant, but yes it would save the state money by not tying up state courts for something enforced at the federal level. It has nothing to do with safety nets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As has been pointed out twice the law was redundant, but yes it would save the state money by not tying up state courts for something enforced at the federal level. It has nothing to do with safety nets.

Hello Steve:

I HEAR you wingers saying that.. But, I'm skeptical.. It looks like you're saying that liberals passed the law when it wasn't necessary at all. But, libs don't do that. If they PASSED the law, it WAS necessary...

Besides, way back in my head, I KNOW you guys don't like ANY laws that smack of freeloading... Plus, I hear Paul Ryan saying that his budget SAVES Medicare, when in fact, it destroys it. So, you'll understand my skepticism.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I HEAR you wingers saying that.. But, I'm skeptical.. It looks like you're saying that liberals passed the law when it wasn't necessary at all. But, libs don't do that. If they PASSED the law, it WAS necessary...

Bahahahaha, that was funny. If a lib passes a law it was necessary, funny stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As has been pointed out twice the law was redundant, but yes it would save the state money by not tying up state courts for something enforced at the federal level. It has nothing to do with safety nets.

Hi Steve,

The fact that the law is redundant is a moot point. We see many postings and opinion pieces which are representative of an individual or groups political persuasions. They leave us in no doubt as to where they stand.

In exactly the same we are left in no doubt as to where Walker stands in relation to women in the workplace.

Safety nets are useless unless individuals have access or the opportunity to redress arbitrary decisions. Attempting to limit access in this case is an example of tampering with the safety net. So I would say it has everything to do with safety nets.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut my eyes glaze over when I read code words like equity and fairness. All that really means in the socialist's vocabulary is wealth redistribution and quotas .

Hi Tom,

They are not code words I am using. Code words are the words I used before, you know the ones: specialization, economic rationalism, human resources, invisible economic hand and the like.

That's the problem with fairness, it doesn't appear in the list because it is difficult to formulate into an ideology. Possibly because it lends itself to working definitions.

Tut

Tom doesn't like fairness it implies it might cost him money.

Fairness is already codified . What you guys are looking for is utopian equality of results. Any way you parce it ,distributive justice means wealth redistribution... which in my view exceeds the constitutional power of the government .

The libs are so inconsistent. The Obots sued the state of Arizona for passing a duplicate to the Federal law on immigration. But they have their panties in a knot because Wisconsin is removing it's duplicate law about incomes discrimination.

And speaking of the fairness of immigration... Is it fair to give a free pass to illegal aliens while immigrants who are trying to follow the rules wait in line ? Is it fair to tell a poor person they have no choice but to send their children to the dangerously inadequate public school system? Is it fair to have minimum wage laws that effectively shut out the young and unskilled from the market ?

What the libs want is some government arbiter using their own values to determine what is "fair" . That fits in well with their view that the government should control every aspects of our lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

What you guys are looking for is utopian equality of results.

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

That fits in well with their view that the government should control every aspects of our lives.

Wrong again. Considering the Republicans ordered all the spying on their own citizens I find that to be hypocritical to say the least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Nope.

Wrong again. Considering the Republicans ordered all the spying on their own citizens I find that to be hypocritical to say the least.

I didn't know Clinton was a republican?? He is the one that started all the electronic spying in the first place.

Didn't know that. It certainly ramped up full spead ahead under Bush though didn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Didn't know that. It certainly ramped up full spead ahead under Bush though didn't it?

Not really. It was more of a matter of trying to take advantage of law/loopholes that existed. There has always been secrecy at the top end. And The bush dynasty started in the dark in the first place. But that doesn't excuse what was going on. It just reafirms that we always need to be vigalant about our rights to privacy and to follow through no matter who is in office. Always question government and then make your own decisions. Clinton did it for more personal reasons (political) and when Bush di it he had his reasons because of outside threats. So its up to us - we the people - to decide how far we let a situation go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

In exactly the same we are left in no doubt as to where Walker stands in relation to women in the workplace.

Federal statue covers workplace discrimination on all counts, race, gender, etc. You’re making an assumption not based on any facts that Walker has attacked women by signing this bill. In fact, four women were among the sponsors of the bill.

Patricia Strachota
Alberta Darling
Pam Galloway
Michelle Litjens

I suppose those lovely ladies hate women, too?

Quote:

Safety nets are useless unless individuals have access or the opportunity to redress arbitrary decisions. Attempting to limit access in this case is an example of tampering with the safety net. So I would say it has everything to do with safety nets.

I'd say it has more to do with fiscal reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Federal statue covers workplace discrimination on all counts, race, gender, etc. You're making an assumption not based on any facts that Walker has attacked women by signing this bill. In fact, four women were among the sponsors of the bill.

Patricia Strachota
Alberta Darling
Pam Galloway
Michelle Litjens

I suppose those lovely ladies hate women, too?

I'd say it has more to do with fiscal reality.

Hi Steve,

Yes, you keep mentioning the Federal Statute. Is this meant to absolve Walker from his actions?

No, I am making my assumption based on the fact that there has been a deliberate attempt to deny women the opportunity put their case forward at the local level.

I didn't say anything about hating women. All I can see is four woman voting along party lines.

Tut

Hello again, Steve:

Like you, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has a list of right wing women senators who DON'T think there's a war on women... Except, that they DO.

Three of the four women McConnell mentioned have already come out against the GOP's war on women - Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Lisa Murkowski.

In fact, Murkowski specifically pushed back on claims like McConnell's, saying, “If you don't feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

There AIN'T nothing more to say, is there?

excon

Those three aren't exactly "right wing women."

And Tut, Wisconsin women can file a complain from home, it doesn't get any more local than that. In fact, they're REQUIRED to file a federal complaint prior to filing a discrimination lawsuit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Those three aren't exactly "right wing women."

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Hello NK:

What Steve means is these ladies are moderate Republicans who have been primaried, or are quitting the Senate. There's no room for them in the NEW Republican Tea Party.

excon

Those are moderate republican NK, and a minority in the republican party, that's why Snow (R), of Maine is leaving. As is Hutchins of (R)Texas.

Moderates are not welcome by republicans any more.

Ah, that's too bad. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket with no voice for the moderate people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ah, that's too bad. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket with no voice for the moderate people.

And this is different from the left-wing of the Democratic party trying to rope in the blue dogs how?