This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the existence of
gender inequality
. Completely dismissing the issue of wage discrepancy, the United States has disproportionately male representatives in both Congress and Senate. The United States has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Then there are the tactics Republicans use to oppose contraception and abortion, such as
these
.
Pertinent:
The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are "one in millions and millions and millions," said state Rep. Stephen Freind, R-Delaware County, the Legislature's leading abortion foe.
Then there's
barring public funds
from Planned Parenthood (90% of their money goes into contraceptives rather than abortions, meaning 4000 women may be without contraceptives).
Or passing laws requiring women have trans-vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion without even being able to bring oneself to say the word "
trans-vaginal
".
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Did you guys see this?
Opinions? Make sure to watch the video in the link in the article.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I didn't realize it was the full hour sermon- I am sure the exact clip is on YouTube somewhere, but I don't have audio at work, and I don't want to link a clip I think is the right one, and then find out it was mislabeled or dubbed. I read a transcript of the part the article discusses, though.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I don't understand why the French citizens want to
increase spending
. It seems akin to getting a sudden thirst for gasoline while standing in a house fire.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I don't understand why the French citizens want to
increase spending
. It seems akin to getting a sudden thirst for gasoline while standing in a house fire.
It seems to me it is not increase, rather redirecting, by pulling out of Afghanistan it will free up resources to rebuild economy and I see that as good thing. Maybe, U.S should try that too.
I don't understand why we can't do all of the above. Stop spending on X, Y, and Z. At the same time, raise revenues, pay off debts, accumulate a surplus, deregulate business, impose tariffs on imports, and incentives on exports, hamstring the EPA, and create a capitalistic world power the likes of which haven't been so centric to world power since Alexander's Greece.
That's just me, though.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You're a bit more all or nothing than I am.
I would keep intervention in foreign nations. I know that "intervention" sounds oh so ominous and terrible, but let's accept that we need to maintain a nuclear deterrent, and South Korea bases, etc, to keep from WW3.
I would be for raising taxes, but it would have to be across the board. Poor people like me make thousands every year in taxes. It's stupid. Everyone should have to pay into taxes. That's one reason I'm so against illegal immigration. How many billions go to them?
Paying off debts, blah blah blah, we agree.
Imposing tariffs might cause shortages, if they were done all at once and were really overwhelming. Imposing tariffs on imports over a 10 year period would just cause businesses to move into the US. Coupled with deregulation of the private sector, job growth/employment would boom.
Hamstring the EPA, not murder it.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You and I seem to have different definition of intervention. By intervention, I mean going around and telling people what to do. You can keep your nukes and bases, as long as you don't enforce your opinions on the matter. For instance, if Lybia and Iraq were functional, and you would buy some Iranian oil, gas prices would be lower making life easier for everyone. Except Russians. And I bet China would stop playing with currency for profit, if US closed their eyes on human rights abuse once in a while. I'm not really for ignoring human rights abuse.
On taxes, no problem, but I have hard time believing in any realism of that.Realism as in, what I want will never happen, or as in how I see it isn't the way it is?
Tariffs, well that might work, only problem is that tariffs in general are bad idea. The whole thing about efficiency, comparative advantage and stuff like that. My major, I should know things like that. If you really care, I can outline major problems with tariffs in later post. They could be temporary. I just want to see an influx of business.
EPA, well, US never signed Kyoto protocol, meaning EPA already is not doing much.
The EPA was already enforcing US rules that went above and beyond what Kyoto wanted. Kyoto was an international agreement, that we chose not to enter, but were already doing the measures held within.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
And that is your problem. You might disagree with some of their practices, but keeping priorities on yourself, and thinking how disagreeing with them affects you in a long run might make life easier for everyone.I'm willing to let some things slide, for this reason. Mass murder, not so much.It will most likely never happen.The more I like an idea, the more the general population dislikes it. It's some sort of curse.Even in that case, there will be waste, that might not be compensated by your influx. And influx might not happen. General consensus is that, if industry requires tariffs to function, in most cases, it won't be able to survive after removal, and instead will lobby for continuation of tariffs.I could see that. What alternative would you suggest?Hmm, did not know that. Anyways, it is hard to put a limit to which you can decrease EPA without it becoming pointless.I know. It's just, we need to deregulate business to a large degree.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It is a good idea. The problem is if it is so good why it is not implemented yet? Answer to this question might be the root of all problems.Is the question: Why don't people want to pay taxes? That doesn't seem to be a mystery.Honestly, the best solution, I can think off is to take workers from dying industries and retrain them to fit prospering once. Specialize in what you can do well, instead of trying to save ones that will eventually die. Exceptions might be food and energy, since they are essential to survival of country.I think that will happen naturally on its own.Again, don't know about you, but I keep hearing about horrendous working conditions on American factories that are located in developing countries. If you want that to happen, then you are free to deregulate.There is a middle ground between
classifying milk as "oil"
and subjecting the dairy industry to the same EPA regulations as the oil industry, and forcing kids to sew soccer balls in sweat shops. I'd like to find that middle ground.
Post by
gamerunknown
were already doing the measures held within
Cite? I can find no evidence for it
here
nor
here
.
Post by
Orranis
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the existence of
gender inequality
. Completely dismissing the issue of wage discrepancy, the United States has disproportionately male representatives in both Congress and Senate. The United States has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Then there are the tactics Republicans use to oppose contraception and abortion, such as
these
.
Pertinent:
The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are "one in millions and millions and millions," said state Rep. Stephen Freind, R-Delaware County, the Legislature's leading abortion foe.
Then there's
barring public funds
from Planned Parenthood (90% of their money goes into contraceptives rather than abortions, meaning 4000 women may be without contraceptives).
Or passing laws requiring women have trans-vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion without even being able to bring oneself to say the word "
trans-vaginal
".
I was really only talking about job opportunity and wage discrepancy, though the politics matters too. First off I don't believe having an even number of representatives from either sex would mean much, but I think the fact is that there is actually a large number of women in the government, certainly large enough that I wouldn't say they're not being allowed in due to their sex. I'd love to be able to pull up some numbers but I can't really, but I'd like to see a comparison between the percentage of candidates that are female and the percentage of women actually in Office. (I actually am upstairs from an female ex-U.S. representative right now, she's my landlady.)
The others I view as a kind of separate issue. It actually confuses me about why this is specifically a "Women's Right's" issue. It is definitely a Rights issue, a huge portion of it is an ignorance issue, but I don't think it's entirely about Women.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.