Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #61

    Apr 10, 2012, 06:26 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    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.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #62

    Apr 10, 2012, 06:39 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    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
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #63

    Apr 10, 2012, 06:51 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    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.
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #64

    Apr 10, 2012, 06:26 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    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
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #65

    Apr 10, 2012, 06:40 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    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
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #66

    Apr 10, 2012, 08:52 PM
    Tom doesn't like fairness it implies it might cost him money.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #67

    Apr 11, 2012, 03:09 AM
    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.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #68

    Apr 11, 2012, 03:33 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    What you guys are looking for is utopian equality of results.
    Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    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.
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,700, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #69

    Apr 11, 2012, 03:43 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    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.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #70

    Apr 11, 2012, 04:09 AM
    Didn't know that. It certainly ramped up full spead ahead under Bush though didn't it?
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,700, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #71

    Apr 11, 2012, 04:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    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.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #72

    Apr 11, 2012, 06:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    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?

    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.
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #73

    Apr 11, 2012, 07:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    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
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #74

    Apr 11, 2012, 08:05 AM
    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
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #75

    Apr 11, 2012, 08:21 AM
    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.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #76

    Apr 11, 2012, 08:34 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Those three aren't exactly "right wing women."
    Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #77

    Apr 11, 2012, 08:40 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    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
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,325, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #78

    Apr 11, 2012, 08:42 AM
    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.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #79

    Apr 11, 2012, 08:43 AM
    Ah, that's too bad. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket with no voice for the moderate people.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #80

    Apr 11, 2012, 09:03 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    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?

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

True or false [ 1 Answers ]

Large molecules containing carbon atoms are called micromolecules.

If a = b, then a - c = b - c is it true or false [ 1 Answers ]

If a = b, then a - c = b - c is it true or false

True or false? [ 3 Answers ]

An inference functions the same as a conclusion of an argument?

True or false [ 1 Answers ]

True or false: In a unit circle, the radian measure of a central angle and the length of the intercepted arc are equal. True or false: In a unit circle, the degree measure of a central angle and the length of the intercepted arc are equal.

True or false [ 2 Answers ]

Is it true that the us is a unitary state because power is divided between the central gov. and the local gov?


View more questions Search