Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

BINDERGATE


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#46 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,199 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:55 AM

I have never called a woman a pussy.
Considering the anatomical "pussy" is one of the toughest organs on a human, would it make sense to call you that for avoiding a relatively simple question? But I digress; if you want enough for it to be sexist, you will find a way to make it sexist.


it's a gendered slur. please stop talking about sexism if you have no grasp of what constitutes sexism.

There may or may not be one.


i will take this as a submission

Just as there may or may not be any correlation between a longer statute of limitations and a decreasing wage gap.

You mentioned this act with such pride that it makes Romney look like a giant ass. But what are the results? It looks to me like it has worked pretty poorly. I'm sure some lawyers got a little trickle down from the act, but women haven't.


please explain how resetting the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit is a net negative. seems pretty clearly positive to me. of course it didn't magically fix the problem and obviously further legislation is necessary. but suggesting that its existence could be a net negative is ridiculous

#47 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,854 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:07 AM

it's a gendered slur. please stop talking about sexism if you have no grasp of what constitutes sexism.


Ok so you hurl out insults non stop, but we must use PC insults on you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok drama queen. Get the sand out of your vagina, unbunch your panties, and quit being a little bitch. Feel better now?



i will take this as a submission



please explain how resetting the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit is a net negative. seems pretty clearly positive to me. of course it didn't magically fix the problem and obviously further legislation is necessary. but suggesting that its existence could be a net negative is ridiculous


1- for someone as enlightened as you, you sure depend on putting words in others' mouths to make your own point.
2- I didn't say it's a net negative. But it sure isn't working. After decades of the gender gap being narrowed, Obama signs the Ledbetter Act into law. Immediately the trend reverses and the gap begins to widen.
Explain how it's a net positive and a benefit to anyone other than a lawyer.

#48 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,199 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 03:58 AM

Ok so you hurl out insults non stop, but we must use PC insults on you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok drama queen. Get the sand out of your vagina, unbunch your panties, and quit being a little bitch. Feel better now?


uh you don't get to redefine what sexism is just because you were called an idiot on the internet

in fact it's posts like this that beg for an insult tbqh

1- for someone as enlightened as you, you sure depend on putting words in others' mouths to make your own point.
2- I didn't say it's a net negative. But it sure isn't working. After decades of the gender gap being narrowed, Obama signs the Ledbetter Act into law. Immediately the trend reverses and the gap begins to widen.
Explain how it's a net positive and a benefit to anyone other than a lawyer.


correlation =/= causation

though i agree, it definitely wasn't enough

also it's a net positive because now these (very particular) discriminatory acts are properly covered by the law. now an employer can't underpay a woman and just hope that the 180 day statute of limitations expires before she finds out. lawyers wouldn't be earning a fuging a dime on this if employers could handle providing equal pay for equal work

#49 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,854 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:49 AM

lol you're still assuming the pay data is based on "equal pay for equal work"
how cute

#50 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,443 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:06 AM

1- for someone as enlightened as you, you sure depend on putting words in others' mouths to make your own point.


Haha... yeah, that's one of Cantrolls favorite ploys along with "quickly change the subject" and "repeat things ad naseum"...

Although I'm sure you meant to put "enlightened" in quotation marks, right?

#51 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,854 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:27 AM

Not at all. He really believes it. Who am I to argue his delusions?

#52 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,199 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:49 AM

lol you're still assuming the pay data is based on "equal pay for equal work"
how cute


the only assumption i'm making is that extending the statute of limitations to cover the most recent discriminatory act is a good thing for a person who has been discriminated against

you're desperate to spin this discussion, to the point that you're projecting that desire upon me. resetting the statute of limitations to include the most recent discriminatory act seems like a pretty cut and dry "good thing" so i can see why you wouldn't want to talk about that. don't worry though, tubs is here to cheer lead for you

#53 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,854 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:55 AM

Yes, talk about lawsuits and how lawyers won't benefit to your heart's content. You'll notice I haven't responded to that for several posts now. Believe what you want to believe.

My point was that, like everything Obama has tried, the legislation has, so far, had the opposite of its intended effect.

#54 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,199 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:05 AM

wait so the intended effect wasn't to provide legal recourse for those who discover, 6 months after being hired, that their employer is paying them less for no (legal) reason? what exactly was "the intended effect" then?

for someone whining about someone else supposedly "putting words in your mouth," you sure are putting a lot of words in this law

#55 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,854 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:22 AM

So now your argument is that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 has nothing to do with narrowing the gender pay gap?

OK, if you say so. You're the enlightened one.


#56 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,199 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:53 AM

weren't you the one responsible for:

the legislation has, so far, had the opposite of its intended effect.


Obama signs the Ledbetter Act into law. Immediately the trend reverses and the gap begins to widen.


as if now allowing women to take employers to court whenever they find out they're being discriminated against, rather than within the first 6 months of their employment, somehow widened the gap

i hate to break it to you but there are tons of variables at work and i've even said (in this very thread) that more legislation is needed. i never suggested that the lilly ledbetter act ended discrimination, in the same way that i've never suggested that the rest of the civil rights act ended discrimination. but allowing someone to file suit whenever they've been discriminated against, rather than just saying "sorry but even though you were discriminated against as recently as last friday, when you received your check, it's gone on for 2 years now so you're gonna have to deal with it," is somehow totally hurting women. flawless logic there

#57 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,854 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:13 AM

Variables at work? No, it's sexism, plain and simple. You've told us that yourself.

#58 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,963 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:31 AM

Posted Image


Romney now wins the hip hop vote

#59 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,199 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:37 PM

Variables at work? No, it's sexism, plain and simple. You've told us that yourself.


sexism shows itself in different ways and lilly ledbetter does not protect against all instances of discrimination in the workplace. you truly have no idea what you're talking about, and i don't understand what exactly you're attempting to prove by clinging to your anti-"increasing the statute of limitations" stance on instances discrimination. while it is highly unlikely that the entire wage gap can be attributed to outright discrimination, about half of it has no other explanation (when controlling for job experience, hours, education, etc.)

i know it is very difficult for you to sympathize for women when you yourself come from the most discriminated against group in america, the straight white male, but by helping women achieve equality, you yourself may break the chains that bind you to the ground

#60 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,075 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:43 PM

so cantrell you are a divorce attorney?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com