Senator Rick Santorum (R - of course) maintains that liberalism causes rape

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
WASHINGTON -- Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston's ''liberalism" with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city's ''sexual license" and ''sexual freedom" nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.

''The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.

''If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.

The junior senator is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference and is considered a possible candidate for his party's presidential nomination in 2008, if he wins reelection to a third Senate term next year.

The senator's words sparked instant reaction from Massachusetts political leaders, who ridiculed Santorum's suggestion that priests were driven to abuse children by the city's liberal culture.

US Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat, called Santorum ''a jerk" and pointed out that the senator tried to use the levers of the federal government to block the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, an act that Santorum likened to ''execution." An autopsy found that Schiavo's brain was half the normal size and that she could not see anything.

''This is one of those people who claims to have had eye contact with a blind woman," Frank said.

David Wade, spokesman for Senator John F. Kerry, said, ''Sometimes you wonder whether Rick Santorum can possibly believe the radically wrong words that escape his mouth."

The senator faces an unexpectedly tough race for reelection next year. Pennsylvania state treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., the expected Democratic candidate, has been ahead or even with Santorum in recent polls, although Casey hasn't begun actively campaigning.

The Pennsylvania senator recently penned a book, ''It Takes a Family," that blasts two-income families, divorce, cohabitation before marriage, and other social trends he considers liberal ills.

The book, set to be released later this month, blames ''radical feminism" for encouraging women to work outside the home. ''In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them don't really need to or at least may not need to work as much as they do," Santorum wrote.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...13/santorum_resolute_on_boston_rebuke?mode=PF

Ahhh, I can't wait until next year's elections when this conservative idiot is no longer relevant.
 
For real. If the conservatives were capable of killing of Daschle last year, this should be a walk in the park comparatively.

Especially since we have the liberal media on our side. :roll:
 
I fail to see in that article where he stated liberalism causes rape.. There's a lot of one and two word quotes put together, a few elipses (......) to allude to a meaning but no direct quote.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking on your part.
 
I can look the other way with regards to Santorum's role in the Schiavo case--things got out of hand there, and lots of people fall prey to mob mentality in situations like that--but his comment on liberal attitudes as the basis for enviroments conducive to sexual abuse....that's an over-simplification at best. To then go on and attempt to blame the Catholic church pedophile scandals on Boston's liberal atmosphere...that's downright outrageous.

Catholic priests have been convicted of molesting boys in churches in many areas; this problem has not been isolated to any one particular city. A quick search through news archives show some hefty payouts in Kentucky and in England (Coventry.) And that's being generous enough to even consider his ridiculous claim in a serious light, for a moment. It's sad, knowing that thousands of people read his words and nodded in agreement.

In an earlier time, Santorum's spiritual predecessor would be at the podium saying that if it weren't for the drugged-up, tree-hugging hippies poisoning the youth culture, this country wouldn't be in such a sad state of affairs.
 
Check out how ghoulish Ricky is- when you first read this, you'll think it's all made up:

In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael. Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."

Karen Santorum, a former nurse, wrote letters to her son during and after her pregnancy. She compiled them into a book, "Letters to Gabriel," a collection of prayers, Bible passages and a chronicle of the prenatal complications that led to Gabriel's premature delivery.

Un-freakin'-believable

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html
 
I'm begging all Republicans: Please pick Santorum as your presidential nominee in 2008!!!

That way it'll be easy for Dems to sweep up offices nationwide.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Check out how ghoulish Ricky is- when you first read this, you'll think it's all made up:

In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael. Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."

Karen Santorum, a former nurse, wrote letters to her son during and after her pregnancy. She compiled them into a book, "Letters to Gabriel," a collection of prayers, Bible passages and a chronicle of the prenatal complications that led to Gabriel's premature delivery.

Un-freakin'-believable

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html[/QUOTE]

Well, at least they can afford counselors for the kids.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That way it'll be easy for Dems to sweep up offices
nationwide.[/QUOTE]

You'd like to think so, but that'd be wishful thinking. How many people voted for George W Bush and continued to support him? Pardon me, continue to support him. I could easily see crowds of people cheering this guy & crowding to hold their babies up for him to kiss.
 
[quote name='RBM']You'd like to think so, but that'd be wishful thinking. How many people voted for George W Bush and continued to support him? Pardon me, continue to support him. I could easily see crowds of people cheering this guy & crowding to hold their babies up for him to kiss.[/QUOTE]
The live or stillborn variety?


I couldn't resist.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I fail to see in that article where he stated liberalism causes rape.. There's a lot of one and two word quotes put together, a few elipses (......) to allude to a meaning but no direct quote.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking on your part.[/QUOTE]


But being muslim "..." makes you a terrorist. Good thinking.
 
PAD's just p.o.'d that his home state of Pennsylvania will see a democratic senator next year. Since I know you love polls so much, what lead does Casey have over Santorum right now, PAD -- 11%?
 
And yet, looking at the quotes from Frank and Casey in the original article, do they add anything of substance?
"A jerk"
"sometimes you wonder"
"this is one of those people"

NOTHING about the issue, no alternate opinion or viewpoint. Simply ad hominem attacks. More of the politics of personal destruction.
Even in this very thread there's only one person so far who has made an attempt at countering the *argument*, not insulting the person postulating it.
Santorum being right, wrong, or indifferent, at least he's trying to make an argument based on the issues and tying things together.

I don't necessarily think a 'liberal culture' "drove" the priests to do what they did, there were certainly lots of other factors, and nothing excuses the act or the coverup, but I do agree in principle that if a culture is more accepting of some things, that can lead to other things occuring or being accepted/tolerated as well.

I agree to an extent that 'radical feminism' enocurages women to work outside the home. That's one of its main foci, even now we still hear the [incorrect] factoid that a woman "makes" 72 cents to a man's dollar, or whatever it is. And the final quote is entirely correct, like was mentioned earlier, most families can, if they want to, live well on a single income. I think having one parent at home is better in some ways, but there are also benefits to two income families. It's been proven that two parents is better than one, except in extreme circumstances [no, noone's suggesting two abusive parents are better than one loving one].

Regarding the baby thing: Yeah, god forbid they mourn the loss of their child, and try to share that child, however briefly, with their family. It's a little weird to have brought him/her home, yes, but I don't think any harm was done, and if it helped them deal with their grief, more power to them. And the book Mrs Santorum wrote, lots of parents talk and sing and write to their unborn babies. Releasing a book is a way of immortalizing that poor child.
 
Does Santorum know that the pedo priests were Catholics.

And we all know that Catholics just LOVE gays.

Oh yeah, this scandal was caused by the libertines.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']And yet, looking at the quotes from Frank and Casey in the original article, do they add anything of substance?
"A jerk"
"sometimes you wonder"
"this is one of those people"

NOTHING about the issue, no alternate opinion or viewpoint. Simply ad hominem attacks. More of the politics of personal destruction.
Even in this very thread there's only one person so far who has made an attempt at countering the *argument*, not insulting the person postulating it.
Santorum being right, wrong, or indifferent, at least he's trying to make an argument based on the issues and tying things together.

I don't necessarily think a 'liberal culture' "drove" the priests to do what they did, there were certainly lots of other factors, and nothing excuses the act or the coverup, but I do agree in principle that if a culture is more accepting of some things, that can lead to other things occuring or being accepted/tolerated as well.

I agree to an extent that 'radical feminism' enocurages women to work outside the home. That's one of its main foci, even now we still hear the [incorrect] factoid that a woman "makes" 72 cents to a man's dollar, or whatever it is. And the final quote is entirely correct, like was mentioned earlier, most families can, if they want to, live well on a single income. I think having one parent at home is better in some ways, but there are also benefits to two income families. It's been proven that two parents is better than one, except in extreme circumstances [no, noone's suggesting two abusive parents are better than one loving one].

Regarding the baby thing: Yeah, god forbid they mourn the loss of their child, and try to share that child, however briefly, with their family. It's a little weird to have brought him/her home, yes, but I don't think any harm was done, and if it helped them deal with their grief, more power to them. And the book Mrs Santorum wrote, lots of parents talk and sing and write to their unborn babies. Releasing a book is a way of immortalizing that poor child.[/QUOTE]

I'm waiting for you to show the argument that women make about 3/4 of the average male salary to be innacurate. Though I think if you see any connection between liberal culture and molestation you're deluding yourself. It happened in a very conservative environment, it happens in africa, it happens in europe, it happened everywhere, and in areas much more conservative than boston.

Look at it another way, the reason boston became the center of the allegations is because the liberal society made it more acceptable for victims to come out against a religious figure.


And on a side note, the female kissing bonk in my sig seems to have ran away.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm waiting for you to show the argument that women make about 3/4 of the average male salary to be innacurate.[/quote]

Second'd. Where's the data, shecky?
 
Wrong choice of words; not 'incorrect', but the factoid is 'inaccurate' and certainly misleading as far as it goes.
Firstly, if women really got paid 75cents to the man's dollar [I forget what the actual claim is, but i'll just use that for example], why in the hell would a man ever have a job? As sexist as some employers are [since assuredly sexism/racism/etc still exists], the higher up they go, the more they're interested in money/profits. You know, being evil capitalists and all.
So if they could instantly save 25% on labor costs, they would do it in a minute. The proposition is inherently illogical.

Secondly, the claim of disparate incomes is primarily given as evidence that the workplace is still quite sexist. [Again, I won't deny there are isolated instances of sexism]. However, the inaccuracy is easily shown when the question is actually stated, "Why the difference in wages?" and an answer other than the flip 'sexism!' is actually sought.

Men historically take more 'dangerous' jobs that command a premium.
Men are more likely to work longer hours and earn overtime pay.
Men historically stay with a company longer.
Men also, until pretty recently, don't take themselves out of the job market for a long period of time to have a child/children. So that six months, year, two years, whatever, a woman stays with her child, that's 2 years more seniority, two years more corporate presence, two years more job history the man has, which generally translates to 'more money'. And, of course, the stereotype of the father putting in the long hours at the office is still to an extent true, again, generally translating into more investment with the company, and more money/income earned. I get paid more than some people of my equivalent level, but I've been here 2 or 3 years longer than them.
So the difference does exist, but there are valid, voluntary reasons for it. Women who never have children, and throw themselves into the workforce just like a man does, generally make the same or even more than the equivalent male.

And some quotes/sources:

"When considering the earnings of full-time year-round women and men, it should be noted that women are employed fewer hours in the week and fewer weeks in the year than their male counterparts. Less time on the job contributes to the earnings difference when women's weekly and annual earnings are compared with men's.'
"The researchers pointed out that the average wages of the entire population of women, have increased much more rapidly than the entire population of men over the 60 years. The researchers estimated that "women's wages grew 20 percent faster than men's wages" as women's work experience increased. Smith and Ward concluded that the rise in women's real wages between 1950 and 1980 accounted for almost 60 percent in the growth of women's labor force during the period. Incentives to work are higher when wages are high; higher wages also tend to discourage larger families so that women have more time for paid work."
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps49666/wagegap2.htm

"Simply put, are women as astute as men when it comes to bargaining for the pay they want and deserve?

Traditionally, they haven't been, and the consequences can't be ignored, says Betty Spence, president of the National Association for Female Executives.

"Make sure you know what your average pay is for your field," Spence advises. "Find out what the men are earning and go in and ask for that. Smart women are taking courses in learning how to negotiate better. Too often they worry about keeping the relationship [with supervisors] warm." '

In other words, the idea of "let's be friends" is more important to many women than the wheeling and dealing of "Here's what I'm offering, here's what I deserve" etc.

"Children have opposite effects on the earning power of men and women, according to a 2003 GAO survey. Men with kids earn 2.1 percent more, on average, than men without kids. Women with kids earn 2.5 percent less than women without kids, the GAO said."

[This is because of the differing maternal and paternal instincts. The maternal instinct is to nurture the child physically and emotionally, which is best done spending more time with the child. The paternal instinct is to 'defend' and 'provide' for the family = work harder/longer, pull in more money.]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/09/CMGLHABABH1.DTL

"When women behave in the workplace as men do, the wage gap between them is small. June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's."

"
Women are also more likely to work part-time. In 2000, one-quarter of all women employees worked part-time, compared to less than 10 percent of men. Nearly 85 percent of those who worked part-time did so for non-economic reasons; e.g., to spend more time with the family or to further their education. In general, married women would prefer part-time work at a rate of 5 to 1 over married men.

While part-time work usually increases flexibility, the part-time worker loses out on promotions and pay increases"

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba392/

Very good, plain=English study here, I won't copy the whole thing:
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/05/01/13/roberts.htm

Here's an interesting article above two-income families I found while searching for the above.
"Two-income couples with children are saving less and incurring more debt than they did 20 years ago, according to Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Unversity and daughter Amelia Warren Tyagi.

In "The Two-Income Trap," the authors stress that the emergence of two-income families since the 1960s has led to a decline in real incomes, lower savings rates and more credit card debt. Other findings include:

* In 1981, savings made up 11 percent of average personal income; by the year 2000, savings declined to -1 percent; meanwhile, credit card debt has risen from 4 percent in 1981 to a whopping 12 percent of average personal income.

* Some 60,000 women filed for bankruptcy in 1981, compared to a staggering 500,000 women in 2001; more than 1 out of 6 single mothers are predicted to file for bankruptcy in this decade.

* Married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as couples without children.

The authors note that as more individuals compete for jobs, real wages have declined. Additionally, the income gained from a second working parent is often spent on day care, second cars, and restaurant bills. Lastly, the higher nominal incomes of two-income families drive up mortgage costs as these families bid for homes in desirable suburban neighborhoods. "

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/eco/2004/pd021104f.html
 
[quote name='dtcarson']I don't necessarily think a 'liberal culture' "drove" the priests to do what they did, there were certainly lots of other factors, and nothing excuses the act or the coverup, but I do agree in principle that if a culture is more accepting of some things, that can lead to other things occuring or being accepted/tolerated as well.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that an atmosphere of permissiveness or tolerance of homosexual lifestyles in Boston lead to Catholic priests molesting altar boys, or that the former has made the latter accepted or tolerated in any way, shape or form.

I know that you are making a general statement (which is more or less true, as most general statements are...heh heh!) but there is a very clear difference in my mind between your saying that here, and a U. S. Congressman attempting to link A. pedophilia in churches in Boston with B. the liberal attitudes toward sexuality in the Boston area. That is not a general statement at all. It is a silly and outlandish attempt to mask a BS statement with vague wording.

It's what he obviously wanted to say, but it'd sound ridiculous if he said it outright, so he receded into "I'm just saying, in general, that sometimes, if a geographical area of some approximate size were to espouse certain ideologies of some undetermined level of laxitude regarding certain aspects of human behavior, such as possibly, those regarding a limited set of human sexual behaviors, that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this scenario could have some discernible effect upon some actions of members of those communities."
:bs:

Or, in my mind: "Hear ye, O thou faithful to His word! Ye knoweth that there be Good and Evil in this fleeting world, and that those who do not hearken unto his Word are the foul cretins who perpetrate those Evil deeds! Doubt not the sanctimonious orders of our Father Church, despite the highly pubilicized molestations carried out by the good Fathers of our Order. For it was not their fault! They dwelleth amongst the unbelievers, and their Good will was perverted by the o'erpowering influence of their sinful surroundings! Ye knoweth who the Enemy is! Do not forget whose side you are on! Do not be confused and bewildered by the lies and deceit of the liberal press!"
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Here's an interesting article above two-income families I found while searching for the above.
"Two-income couples with children are saving less and incurring more debt than they did 20 years ago, according to Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Unversity and daughter Amelia Warren Tyagi.

In "The Two-Income Trap," the authors stress that the emergence of two-income families since the 1960s has led to a decline in real incomes, lower savings rates and more credit card debt. Other findings include:

* In 1981, savings made up 11 percent of average personal income; by the year 2000, savings declined to -1 percent; meanwhile, credit card debt has risen from 4 percent in 1981 to a whopping 12 percent of average personal income.

* Some 60,000 women filed for bankruptcy in 1981, compared to a staggering 500,000 women in 2001; more than 1 out of 6 single mothers are predicted to file for bankruptcy in this decade.

* Married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as couples without children.

The authors note that as more individuals compete for jobs, real wages have declined. Additionally, the income gained from a second working parent is often spent on day care, second cars, and restaurant bills. Lastly, the higher nominal incomes of two-income families drive up mortgage costs as these families bid for homes in desirable suburban neighborhoods. "

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/eco/2004/pd021104f.html[/QUOTE]
Doesn't all of this negate your theory that most families could live off of one income?
 
""I'm just saying, in general, that sometimes, if a geographical area of some approximate size were to espouse certain ideologies of some undetermined level of laxitude regarding certain aspects of human behavior, such as possibly, those regarding a limited set of human sexual behaviors, that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this scenario could have some discernible effect upon some actions of members of those communities."
"
This phrasing and concept I agree with. For him to say or imply, "The local society caused the priests to molest kids" is a vast oversimplification and wrong. However, the general idea that you rephrase is correct. But your quote and what he is saying are not the same thing.
I don't disagree with this: "the city's ''sexual license" and ''sexual freedom" nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur." although I would change 'would' to 'is more likely to'. I think something like that is common sense. Linking it directly to these instances of Catholic priest molestation is not accurate.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Doesn't all of this negate your theory that most families could live off of one income?[/QUOTE]

Nope.
They "could" live off of one income.
They could probably NOT do it at their current standard of living.
[I also don't know if "most" families could, it would depend on the family size among other things.]

If other habits changed, that are referenced in that very article. Save more, spend less, quit using credit cards. How much of that debt those two-income households have, is "useful" debt [mortgage, land, car, education, etc.] and how much is 'consumer' debt [Best Buy/Discover cards, etc.]

And if one parent stays at home, though they lose that income, they also lose the expenses--maybe no longer needing two cars [toss car payment and insurance], no longer needing dry cleaners, or dining out/bringing frozen food to lunch at the office, no longer paying for daycare [which can be quite expensive], etc. It would certainly require a lifestyle change, but it can be done. Obviously it's easier if the two income earners didn't dig themselves into a debt hole to begin with.

And it's not chicken-or-egg: the two-income family has led to the things such as "decline in real incomes, lower savings rates and more credit card debt", not vice versa.

The problem/challenge comes in when the twoincome family spends their two incomes and more, and gets used to a twoincome lifestyle, and incurs two-income debts; then tries [or has to] shift to a single-income family. I know and work with lots of people who worked for 'dotcoms' and didnt' see their whole industry was a fraud; they bought houses at their 'then' salaries, paying 2-5% down since they didn't have that much saved, but fully expected to continue earning their vastly overinflated salaries. Didn't happen. So they now work at my company, which pays pretty well, but they couldn't afford to keep up their payments. Had to sell at a major loss and sometimes ended up paying to get out of their mortgage. That's not the same situation as going from 2 income to 1, but the challenges are similar.
 
Basically what you are saying is women shouldn't work, those bitches should be barefoot in the kitchen.

I hope you never get married.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Basically what you are saying is women shouldn't work, those bitches should be barefoot in the kitchen.

I hope you never get married.[/QUOTE]
Better yet, I hope he does. To a real ballbuster. :lol:
 
I would love to be a stay at home dad. I don't mind cooking or cleaning and I'd get to do what ever whenever... I just don't want kids...
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Better yet, I hope he does. To a real ballbuster. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Angry man-hating, militant dyke anyone? :lol:
 
First off, National Center for Policy Analysis is a conservative think-tank (or, to be more accurate, it's the Heritage Foundation under a different name). I won't bother with what they have to say for that reason alone.

Regarding the "dangerous jobs" argument, the 76 cents/dollar argument is across the board comparing pairs of people at the same level of employment. We're not comparing coal miners to retail here.

I think that one thing that your citations consistently ignore is patriarchy, partially because its engraved in our culture. I also think that your reasons would account for some disparity, but to disregard the 24% difference flippantly, claiming that it's all due to women having children, is just lazy.

Would you claim that all women are paid fairly compared to similarly employed men at the same position and for the same period of time? That they have a similar number of advancement opportunities compared to men in a given company? That homosocial reproduction (google it) doesn't exist?

Sheeit. Also, the "all men would be out of work if women were paid less" argument is just fucking stupid. I would like to paint a pretty picture around it and say that it's simply "untrue," but I'm afraid that it's just fucking stupid. If only because blacks in America, even in the Jim Crow era post-slavery through the industrial revolution and into "the great society," were, as a labor source, *immensely* cheaper to hire than whites. On the other hand, there are economic incentives (union bullying, boycotts, maintaining a complacent labor force through racial homogenization, etc.) to not hiring the cheaper labor. Consider that we're entering a time where Asian Indians are slowly becoming the bane of the American blue collars (the South Park "Dey tuk ur JUUBS!" if you will) due to their presence on "our" telephone lines. Although I think rational choice theory (cost/benefit analyses) are boring, incorrect, and flagrantly tautological, if you want to use it (and you can), don't think that it's as simple as "person A makes $1/hr, person B makes $2/hr, so I'll fire person B and hire person A instead."
 
Wow, that's exactly what I've said, very good. :roll:
And way to continue the legacy of empty, vague, ad hominem, irrelevant 'quips.'
And wishing a fellow human would suffer? Not very liberal of you.

I don't recall ever having said "should" in my posts. "Could". Shall I point you to dictionary.com so you can determine the difference between a possibility and a judgement? Although you seem to have the 'judgement' thing down pat. I am tolerant and openminded, I can consider and argue an idea without necessarily believing in it.

And not that it really matters, but I am married, going on 10 years [probably longer than most relationships you people have had, with real people that is], two incomes, with one child.

Anyway, I've love to *discuss* the issue, the ideas, and the topic, if you have anything of substance to add.

[note: mykes post was not present when I wrote this one so far].
 
[quote name='dtcarson']And not that it really matters, but I am married, going on 10 years [probably longer than most relationships you people have had, with real people that is], two incomes, with one child.[/QUOTE]
Typical internet argument, claiming to be on the side you are bashing to try and give yourself credibility.

And the best part? It's totaly unverifiable either way, so all of the other posters will believe you.
 
[quote name='dtcarson'][note: mykes post was not present when I wrote this one so far].[/QUOTE]

You could probably just repost everything else here. :lol:
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Typical internet argument, claiming to be on the side you are bashing to try and give yourself credibility.

And the best part? It's totaly unverifiable either way, so all of the other posters will believe you.[/QUOTE]

Does your tinfoil hat fit? You are incredibly paranoid; show me where I am "bashing" that side, or any side other than the "jump in a discussion feet first but don't add anything of value" side.
I don't really care if some people believe me or not. Caring about that would imply I value their opinion at all, and since your hatefulness shows through with every post you make, I don't care to value that.
If I were going to be on that side, I would have claimed to be a woman.

Myke: No, i haven't read or answered yours yet, but yours actually has ideas and logic and argument, so a lot of what I said previously doesn't apply to it. Though I may disagree with you on things and vice versa, I'd like to thank you for raising the level of debate.

Though the NCPA may be a "conservative think tank", does that make any of their facts or assertions wrong? if this is conservative: "The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector" I'm all for it. I also can't find any official link between NCPA and Heritage, other than sharing one member.

I don't totally disregard the 24% figure as a whole, I'm sure there are certain industries and companies that, are purposefully or not, quite sexist.

Some other factors: "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week - that's why most CEOs are male." When something like 60% of jobs are hourly, that can make a lot of difference. Even in the salaried positions, that person working 50 hours is more likely to be promoted than someone working 40 hours.

I won't deny "homosocial reproduction" exists, I just read an excellent column by Mike Adams where he was a victim of it. To an extent it falls under 'conformity', you are more likely to fit in and grow in an environment if you conform to some extent. The extent, definitely matters--I don't think someone should not be promoted because he supports the 'wrong' baseball team or something like that, but in other cases, it is fitting.

'Would you claim that all women are paid fairly compared to similarly employed men at the same position and for the same period of time? That they have a similar number of advancement opportunities compared to men in a given company?"

All women? No. I would say there's still a difference, but it's nowhere near the 24% figure routinely bandied about. Other issues come into play as well--what did they do *before* getting that job? She and I have both worked here 5 years, but before this, she took 4 years off till her child went to school; I worked 4 years in a position very similar to my current one. In that case, I would expect to earn more. if we perform equally, we should both get equivalent percentage raises, but of course 4% of, say, 75k is more than 4% of 65k.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']PAD's just p.o.'d that his home state of Pennsylvania will see a democratic senator next year. Since I know you love polls so much, what lead does Casey have over Santorum right now, PAD -- 11%?[/QUOTE]

I never had a problem with Bob Casey Sr. he was a pro-life moderate who the DNC refused a speaking platform at the 96 convention because of that position.

I voted for this Casey last November. He's probably more moderate than the old man was and many on DU would call a DINO. Goes to show you how truly STUPID you are.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I never had a problem with Bob Casey Sr. he was a pro-life moderate who the DNC refused a speaking platform at the 96 convention because of that position.

I voted for this Casey last November. He's probably more moderate than the old man was and many on DU would call a DINO. Goes to show you how truly STUPID you are.[/QUOTE]

I know Casey is against abortion, but he's still a Democrat that could help change the majority in the Senate next year.

Unless the democrats find someone else, pennsylvanians will vote for Casey. Good-bye, Ricky.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Does your tinfoil hat fit? You are incredibly paranoid; show me where I am "bashing" that side, or any side other than the "jump in a discussion feet first but don't add anything of value" side.
I don't really care if some people believe me or not. Caring about that would imply I value their opinion at all, and since your hatefulness shows through with every post you make, I don't care to value that.
If I were going to be on that side, I would have claimed to be a woman.

Myke: No, i haven't read or answered yours yet, but yours actually has ideas and logic and argument, so a lot of what I said previously doesn't apply to it. Though I may disagree with you on things and vice versa, I'd like to thank you for raising the level of debate.

Though the NCPA may be a "conservative think tank", does that make any of their facts or assertions wrong? if this is conservative: "The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector" I'm all for it. I also can't find any official link between NCPA and Heritage, other than sharing one member.

I don't totally disregard the 24% figure as a whole, I'm sure there are certain industries and companies that, are purposefully or not, quite sexist.

Some other factors: "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week - that's why most CEOs are male." When something like 60% of jobs are hourly, that can make a lot of difference. Even in the salaried positions, that person working 50 hours is more likely to be promoted than someone working 40 hours.

I won't deny "homosocial reproduction" exists, I just read an excellent column by Mike Adams where he was a victim of it. To an extent it falls under 'conformity', you are more likely to fit in and grow in an environment if you conform to some extent. The extent, definitely matters--I don't think someone should not be promoted because he supports the 'wrong' baseball team or something like that, but in other cases, it is fitting.

'Would you claim that all women are paid fairly compared to similarly employed men at the same position and for the same period of time? That they have a similar number of advancement opportunities compared to men in a given company?"

All women? No. I would say there's still a difference, but it's nowhere near the 24% figure routinely bandied about. Other issues come into play as well--what did they do *before* getting that job? She and I have both worked here 5 years, but before this, she took 4 years off till her child went to school; I worked 4 years in a position very similar to my current one. In that case, I would expect to earn more. if we perform equally, we should both get equivalent percentage raises, but of course 4% of, say, 75k is more than 4% of 65k.[/QUOTE]

Good points. In general, I'm constantly wrestling with whether I should acknowledge the research of think-tanks (of any flavor). While I'm sure there is good research, I'm bothered by organizations that starts with conclusions (stemming from ideologies) and work backwards.

The 3-hour per week discrepancy is interesting (and I wonder how many people fall into that, or if this is really the convergance of people who work very few hours and very many hours), and, if taken literally (these are meaningful means), shouldn't show such a male-dominated field in the upper end of corporate heirarchy. I'm curious what the causal order is (do people who work a ton of hours move up easier, or do people who move up significantly increase their time spent at work, perhaps due to increased performance pressures?).

I'm curious if the "a male likely has a greater work history than a given female" argument holds any water. I'd still point to patriarchy for some (but how much? I dunno) responsibility if they are different, but actual data measuring this would be pretty cool to check out (in the sense that checking out data is cool).
 
Pennsylvania hasn't had an elected Democratic Senator in my lifetime. Just because he has the Casey name doesn't mean he's going to win. Even if he does he may very well turn out to be another Zell Miller. This guy isn't what you think he is.

If you think the D's are going to swing 10 seats in the Senate next you I'll go back to my initial statemen; you are indeed STUPID.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Pennsylvania hasn't had an elected Democratic Senator in my lifetime. Just because he has the Casey name doesn't mean he's going to win. Even if he does he may very well turn out to be another Zell Miller. This guy isn't what you think he is.

If you think the D's are going to swing 10 seats in the Senate next you I'll go back to my initial statemen; you are indeed STUPID.[/QUOTE]

You can only go back to that which you've strayed from. ;)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If you think the D's are going to swing 10 seats in the Senate next you I'll go back to my initial statemen; you are indeed STUPID.[/QUOTE]

Next year will be interesting with the Tom Delay scandal, Rove scandal, Santorum comments, the continuing Iraq crisis, recruitement strain, judicial nominee picks, Schiavo case, etc. etc weighing in.

Plus, I'm sure the neocons have a whole bag full of surprises in store between now and then.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Plus, I'm sure the neocons have a whole bag full of surprises in store between now and then.[/QUOTE]
They'll pull Osama out of his hidey-hole then every GOP congressman up for re-election will have a photo-op giving him a wedgie.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Next year will be interesting with the Tom Delay scandal, Rove scandal, Santorum comments, the continuing Iraq crisis, recruitement strain, judicial nominee picks, Schiavo case, etc. etc weighing in.

Plus, I'm sure the neocons have a whole bag full of surprises in store between now and then.[/QUOTE]

None of which will play in Senatorial or Congressional races. News cycle issues from the first half of 2005 won't matter in November of 2006.

DeLay, easy win. Santorum will win. Rove, not an issue. Judicial nomiees more likely to harm Democrats. Did you see the poll that only 24% of the population thinks Democrats should veto, fillibuster or interfere with Bush's Supreme Court pick?

Hell, Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was the fucking general counsel of the ACLU sailed through nomination 83-17. Now, who's the obstructionist party again???
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']They'll pull Osama out of his hidey-hole then every GOP congressman up for re-election will have a photo-op giving him a wedgie.[/QUOTE]

But that would be terrorist abuse. :roll:
 
I'm kind of surprised that it was big news that Catholic priests had a higher then normal percentage of pedos. I thought it was common knowledge (heck, just pick up any literature featuring the Catholic clergy from the mideval-present times).

To suggest that libertines (and in all places, Boston!) are responsible is ludicrous.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Basically what you are saying is women shouldn't work, those bitches should be barefoot in the kitchen.

I hope you never get married.[/QUOTE]

Why do women have smaller feet than men?

So they can be closer to the sink.
 
[quote name='Rich']Why do women have smaller feet than men?

So they can be closer to the sink.[/QUOTE]

Something tells me you're gonna be one of those men who tells all his friends that he's the bosses and that his wife jumps at his command, only to go home and be cursed out and relegated to the couch for a week for being 2 minutes past his 8 o'clock curfew.

Either that, or you're gonna have a restraining order against you for beating you wife cause she didn't make dinner.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Something tells me you're gonna be one of those men who tells all his friends that he's the bosses and that his wife jumps at his command, only to go home and be cursed out and relegated to the couch for a week for being 2 minutes past his 8 o'clock curfew.

Either that, or you're gonna have a restraining order against you for beating you wife cause she didn't make dinner.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and I kill babies because I make dead baby jokes, too.
 
[quote name='Rich']Yes, and I kill babies because I make dead baby jokes, too.[/QUOTE]

http://www.eatbabies.com/

Takes care of the bodies.

barbottom.jpg
 
Wow, what a douchebag.

To the person that said that we're just insulting the man and not addressing the argument: There is no substance to this "argument", he just wants to blame liberals for pedophilia. It doesn't warrant debate or discussion, and it makes the speaker look like an ignorant, out of touch, partisan hack. Which he is. Have you heard about his new book?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05187/533421.stm

He believes that two income families have both parents working because they want to, not because they have to. This guy is so incredibly out of touch, its unbelievable. Maybe he was simply encouraging people to spend more time with their family, when he wanted to get rid of overtime pay, and ban states from enacting their own overtime laws. Wow, they got rid of states rights faster than they got rid of Dan Quayle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top