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 TUT317
|
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 TUT317
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
Bahahahaha, that was funny. If a lib passes a law it was necessary, funny stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hi Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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?
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 NeedKarma
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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.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.
Hi Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello NK:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.
And this is different from the left-wing of the Democratic party trying to rope in the blue dogs how?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 AM. |