[BRussell]

Prediction for the Republican message: Obama is unpatriotic.

I know, shocking. The Republicans going after a Democrat's patriotism?

Here's how it will go down.

1. Via mass anonymous email and flyers and push polls: He's a Muslim. He put his hand on the Koran to be sworn in. He refuses to say the pledge, sing the national anthem, etc. The official campaign will distance itself from these messages.

2. In public: He's against the troops, he wants America to lose the war, he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin, his wife isn't proud of America, he wants to be friends with America's enemies like Iran.

It will all work together, the underlying message full of lies going out under the radar, and the above-board message going out publicly by the campaign. It's designed to be a single message that low-information voters (i.e., independents) won't differentiate, but that the media narrative won't blame on the campaign because it will officially reject the lies while playing up the more acceptable messages. It plays into the race card that blacks aren't real Americans and into his foreign name.

[tie]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom 

Let's not get into the "your party is more racist" debate, because I am quite sure that the result would just be proving both have their share of asshats.

I think everyone knows exactly what the result would be. And yes it matters.

[Shaddim]

indeed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I would think even the worst f-up would have the support of their direct friends in any group. But what your other co-workers, superiors, etc. think about a person counts for a lot also.

What the surviving people who were under his command think of him, by a ratio of 8:1, is that he did a good job.

Because those 8 people are Kerry's friends, I can't (nor would I want to) claim they are disinterested parties.

On the other hand, since they had their lives in Kerry's hands, I would find the claim they were disinterested in him being a ****-up to be just as off the mark. I would be equally incredulous if one were to claim the latter doesn't influence the former.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

How difficult is it for everyone to understand that both sides were fabricating stories? Perhaps, if Kerry hadn't been touting his manufactured war hero status, someone else wouldn't have come along and smeared him.

[BRussell]

So which stories was Kerry fabricating? That he went to Cambodia in December vs. November? And that's equivalent to claiming that he had falsified each one of his many medals? There aren't two sides to every issue. That's relativism. There is such a thing as truth, and when it came to the smear campaign against Kerry's medals, one side was telling the truth and one side was fabricating.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

...wait a minute. Are you saying that revisionist history and relativism are wrong?!? By God, what kind of Liberal do you think you are? How do you sleep at night?!?!

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The poorly-worded question was "should men and women working the same job (e.g. teaching) get the same pay?"

Your answer was "no." Then you started talking about how you're a good worker and don't think a woman should get the same pay as you. I don't see how that has any relevance to the question. Could you please explain your "no" position further? greg

No. I said I was a better worker and made more than most men and women at my job. I finished by saying; "I'd say it is unfair that one who isn't as good a steward of their employment as I gets equal pay because they have breasts." I'm very careful about the words I use and it annoys me when people hack what I said to bits.

To your question the answer is simply "no". I've already said why. Equal rights cannot ensure equal outcomes.

- Does the job provide annual merit increases? Should someone (male or female) come in fresh at the same pay as one who's been there several years?
- Do they commit to the same level of service including travel and relocation?
- Do they work overtime @ time and a half? Double time? Differential pay for working overnight?

Same job, different pay. Like I told ironknee earlier, this is not a problem for my female boss. What I failed to include is that she is also black. While she is one of the best people I've worked for, there is nothing so special about her that other women can't compete.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

But as I emphasized, you're ignoring the question. You're not even answering it. He asked a specific question, which I re-phrased: "should men and women working the same job (e.g. teaching) get the same pay?"

You're introducing all sorts of extraneous variables into the question; job experience, overtime work, levels of service, etc. I'm even unsure how some of these apply to teaching. In any case, that's not what he asked. His question was in the clear spirit of "should men and women receive equal wages for a job, given equal capabilities." His question clearly was not asking "if a man is a much better worker than a women, should they get equal pay."

People (e.g. me) "hack your words to bits" because your wording is imprecise and ambiguous. This is a clear example of that.

You still haven't answered the question.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So which stories was Kerry fabricating?

I only looked at the first commercial in-depth, but his first PH is called into question because it was, A) minor and B) self-inflicted. B only counts for a PH if you are under enemy fire, so it is alleged that he made that up. This isn't entirely implausible, as neither of the other people there remember being fired at, though they admitted it can tough to tell over one's own fire. There's also the motive of reassignment, which happens after 3 PHs.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But as I emphasized, you're ignoring the question. You're not even answering it. He asked a specific question, which I re-phrased: "should men and women working the same job (e.g. teaching) get the same pay?"

Oh okay, this is where the educational system experts pop out of the woodwork. I'll bite, please provide information that male teachers earn more, but have the exact same qualifications, the same tenure, are in the same demand demographically, are equally conscientious about their service, and produce in equal fashion.

You're introducing all sorts of extraneous variables into the question; job experience, overtime work, levels of service, etc. I'm even unsure how some of these apply to teaching.

Put a tad more effort into it.

In any case, that's not what he asked. His question was in the clear spirit of "should men and women receive equal wages for a job, given equal capabilities." His question clearly was not asking "if a man is a much better worker than a women, should they get equal pay."

No. Pay by its very nature is not equal. A. It's tacky to even talk about it B. Some are more aggressive in trying to get it than others including asking for it more regularly. C. People are not equal. D. None of this is a problem for my female boss who earns more than me.

People (e.g. me) "hack your words to bits" because your wording is imprecise and ambiguous. This is a clear example of that.

No. On the contrary, it is yet another example of you twisting what people say to fit whatever it is you're wanting to argue against.

You still haven't answered the question.

Then you're still not reading my posts.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You still haven't answered the question. I will repeat it again:

Should men and women working the same job (e.g. teaching), with similar qualifications, get the same pay?

It's a simple question. I have no idea about any information on this subject. It'd be nice to figure out if you think men and women should be paid equally however.

greg

[Chongo]

I work in the semiconductor industry and women make the same, if not more than men doing the same job, at least where I work. Management goes out of their way to move women up, and in some cases, over more qualified men. Three women I know were promoted to process tech. They all had less than 5 years industry experience, and no college, over several techs who were downgraded after their fab closed.

[ironknee]

shortcut, i'll try again

ebuddy. 2 people. same age same education same number of hours worked (same overtime and a half, etc...)

same talent same qualifications.

except one is male and one is female.

should they both get equal pay for the same job?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I think he may be suggesting that men should be paid more because they are more likely to somehow work "better," e.g. by working more overtime or "producing more" or being "more aggressive."

Unfortunately it's quite hard to tell exactly what he's saying.

greg

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So which stories was Kerry fabricating? That he went to Cambodia in December vs. November? And that's equivalent to claiming that he had falsified each one of his many medals?

Oh man. A fabricated version of the whole Cambodia issue, presented as an argument about fabricating! Amazing!

It wasn't anything as simple as the difference between November and December, that's straight up ass-pulled in true Kerry fashion.

Kerry was commenting on Nixon conducting an illegal war in Cambodia (true, and documented) but in typical Kerry liar fashion, trying to cast himself into it. He claimed to be there in December 1968- and by the way, the date claimed is indisputable, because also in typical Kerry liar fashion, he claimed the Vietnamese were celebrating Christmas, and the memory of the whole event was "seared" into his memory. Too bad the subject wasn't seared into yours.

Of course, Nixon didn't take office until January 1969. Opps.

EVEN Kerry himself tried to revise his claim to a later date, then dropped the whole obvious lie which he clearly hadn't thought through. So there's no need for you to further fabricate the story, even Kerry has MovedOn from it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

How difficult is it for everyone to understand that both sides were fabricating stories?

I recall only one of those sides running for the office of President of the United States, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

What the surviving people who were under his command think of him, by a ratio of 8:1, is that he did a good job.

Hey, that's fine. But thankfully, a couple million other Americans used their votes to collectively tell him to "take a hike!"

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I recall only one of those sides running for the office of President of the United States, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Oh, I agree, the shame is on him primarily.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

shortcut, i'll try again

ebuddy. 2 people. same age same education same number of hours worked (same overtime and a half, etc...)

same talent same qualifications.

except one is male and one is female.

should they both get equal pay for the same job?

If you include; "same region" also then Yes, in this instance they should get equal pay. Hell they're practically twins. Of course they should get equal pay.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I think he may be suggesting that men should be paid more because they are more likely to somehow work "better," e.g. by working more overtime or "producing more" or being "more aggressive."

See this is your problem. I've never once said that "men should be paid more." Not once. My point was that pay by it's nature is not equal. People by nature are not equal. They can and should have equal rights, but this cannot ensure equal outcomes. I included that the hard work, tenure, more productivity, OT, and more aggressive (within reason) you are in getting higher pay the more likely you are to get it. You will make more than most men and women.

Unfortunately it's quite hard to tell exactly what he's saying.

Tell ya what, it'll go much easier for you if you quit trying to read into my posts instead of just reading my posts.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But thankfully, a couple million other Americans used their votes to collectively tell him to "take a hike!"

Feel free to start a thread on it. I'll participate.

I feel he's worthless too, but that doesn't seem relevant to the question at hand.

[Chongo]

looks like she is getting desperate
CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2008�

note the photos at the bottom

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

See this is your problem. I've never once said that "men should be paid more." Not once. My point was that pay by it's nature is not equal. People by nature are not equal. They can and should have equal rights, but this cannot ensure equal outcomes. I included that the hard work, tenure, more productivity, OT, and more aggressive (within reason) you are in getting higher pay the more likely you are to get it. You will make more than most men and women.


Tell ya what, it'll go much easier for you if you quit trying to read into my posts instead of just reading my posts.

if the woman works harder, tenure, ot etc...should she get more pay? you know she usually doesn't.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Unfortunately it's quite hard to tell exactly what he's saying.

With minimal effort, all of you have been crystal clear to me so far, so I'm not sure that's the problem.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Oh man. A fabricated version of the whole Cambodia issue, presented as an argument about fabricating! Amazing!

It wasn't anything as simple as the difference between November and December, that's straight up ass-pulled in true Kerry fashion.

Kerry was commenting on Nixon conducting an illegal war in Cambodia (true, and documented) but in typical Kerry liar fashion, trying to cast himself into it. He claimed to be there in December 1968- and by the way, the date claimed is indisputable, because also in typical Kerry liar fashion, he claimed the Vietnamese were celebrating Christmas, and the memory of the whole event was "seared" into his memory. Too bad the subject wasn't seared into yours.

Of course, Nixon didn't take office until January 1969. Opps.

EVEN Kerry himself tried to revise his claim to a later date, then dropped the whole obvious lie which he clearly hadn't thought through. So there's no need for you to further fabricate the story, even Kerry has MovedOn from it.

Oh wow man, you really got me. I said it was November vs. December, but it was really December vs. January? And that is exactly equivalent to a well-funded Republican smear campaign challenging each one of Kerry's many medals! Both sides are fabricating stories, after all.

And I suppose that when Bush claimed he saw the first plane hit the WTC, live, on 9/11, that was a fabrication equivalent to and canceling out the smears on him saying he was behind the whole attack. Both sides were fabricating stories, right crash?

Now where is that rolleyes smiley...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...wait a minute. Are you saying that revisionist history and relativism are wrong?!? By God, what kind of Liberal do you think you are? How do you sleep at night?!?!

greg

Oh sorry, you're right. Every side of every story is equivalent.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Oh wow man, you really got me. I said it was November vs. December, but it was really December vs. January?

Again, making stuff up just to defend a lie even Kerry has long dropped! I ask again, what is it with you being ready to defend ANY lie, no matter how obvious, just because someone with a D told it? Why the need to defend Kerry at all costs? He already lost.

January 1969 doesn't work either for your information. Unfortunately for your 'defend the D at all costs' stance, Kerry pegged his lie many times(publicly, over 4 decades!) as Christmas Eve- the exact date , and claimed it was seared in his memory as such. Unfortunately for you history revisionist types, he didn't leave you very much wiggle room to play with! He wasn't in the swift boat service in December 1969, so before you try and further fabricate with your next post, I'll save you the trouble.

No troops were sent to Cambodia until April 1970- Nixon took office Jan 20th, 1969, so there goes the January '69 grasp at straws. Nixon made the comment about Cambodia that Lurch got mixed up about in November 1971- several years after Kerry left the swiftboat service.

Lurch either lied about being in Cambodia in December 1968 (by the way, NONE of his comrades have ever backed him up on that, because they were all smart enough to know how the timeline doesn't work- the entire lie pins Cambodia on Johnson, and changes history!) or he was there against orders, breaking all sorts of international laws, conducting his own private war. Either way, he pegged himself as unfit to be the commander-in-chief. Live with it, and MoveON!

The funniest thing about all of this, is you were trying to make some point about there not being two sides to a story, but only the truth vs. falsehoods- yet you seem incredibly lax at actually bothering to get the actual facts about anything, as opposed to just making things up. VERY Kerry-esque.

Yeah, where is that rolls eye smiley?


oops.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Any honest look at the history of Civil Rights legislation in this country will admit that it was the Republicans who were the foundation, the spirit, the drive, and the sponsorship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In case it is still less than clear, let the voting totals found in the wiki entry you cited speak for itself

Republicans, yes, but not the conservative vote. There are two major points in American history where the liberal and conservative voting base changed party affiliation: 1860s, and, interestingly enough, the 1960s almost exactly 100 years later. During those time periods, the liberal voting base fell under the Republican party and the conservative voting base fell under the Democratic party. The current conserative Republican party had little to nothing to do with efforts during the Civil Rights movement.

After the civil rights movement, the liberal voting base moved to the Democratic party as that was the ticket they ran on to get a Democrat in office. The 1960s & 1970s were the eras that the party lines were definitively drawn in association with liberal or conservative leanings.

As people today make little or no distinction between Liberal, Democrat, Conservative, and Republican, they assume that the Republican party of today is directly affiliated with the Republican parties of the 1860s and 1960s. The conservative voter base were Democrats at those times, what you would today associate with Republican.

[BRussell]

Exactly crash, mixing up January and December is an equivalently fabricated story as a Republican-funded national media campaign to discredit each one of Kerry's several medals! It's all relative! A pox on both their houses!

According to Kerry's biographer, there were several excursions into Cambodia in January and February. According to Kerry's own journal written at the time, he was near the Cambodian border during Christmas. But he must be an evil Democrat liar, and therefore it's equivalent to a multi-million dollar Republican-funded set of lies to question all the combat medals he earned.

I'll ask you again crash: Bush claimed he saw the first plane hit the WTC live on 9/11. We know this is impossible, since it obviously wasn't being televised live. Is he a liar? And is Bush's "lie" equivalent to those stories accusing him of masterminding 9/11?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

January 1969 doesn't work either for your information. Unfortunately for your 'defend the D at all costs' stance...

Same could be said about you and Republicans.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Exactly crash, mixing up January and December is an equivalently fabricated story as a Republican-funded national media campaign to discredit each one of Kerry's several medals! It's all relative! A pox on both their houses!

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon [sic] claimed there were no American troops was very real." John Kerry, October 1979

"Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge* and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -— seared -— in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict." John Kerry, March 1986
*by the way, didn't exist until 1972

By all means, keep spinning BRussel! Defend that 'D' at all costs, even if you have to make up what the man said, over several decades! Let me guess, so we can assume "There is such a thing as truth" means, "unless the 'truth' is inconvenient, in which case, make up whatever you want. So wait, maybe you can just make up that it was Christmas Eve 1969, after Kerry left the service and still before troops were sent into Cambodia, and that will work just because you say it.That's the ticket!

This strange desire to defend such obvious lies of your long-since-lost-the-election D candidate is amazing. Cut it loose already. There's no need to keep falling on your sword over Kerry. He was a terrible candidate with tons of baggage. Are you able, or do you just carry some pathological need to keep making up excuses for him?

[BRussell]

See crash, for me it's not about partisanship, it's about the truth. That's why I keep bringing up the lies about Bush seeing the first plane crash live and being behind 9/11. That is a lie and a smear. As are the lies and smears about Kerry's medals.

On Cambodia, he may have been mistaken 10 years after the fact about whether he was on one side or the other of the Cambodian border. He may have been mistaken about it being late December or early January. But if he was mistaken, you haven't proven it. Kerry had not left the service by Christmas 1968. In his journal that he kept at the time, he says he was on the border of Cambodia during Christmas. The swift boats operated near the Cambodian border. His biographer says that he had missions into Cambodia in January and February of 1969. So if he says, 10 years later, that he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, at worst, he's a few weeks or a few miles off. That's not an equivalent fabricated story to a massively funded political campaign attempting to discredit his medals. Can you answer this crash: Do you really think those are equivalent?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As people today make little or no distinction between Liberal, Democrat, Conservative, and Republican, they assume that the Republican party of today is directly affiliated with the Republican parties of the 1860s and 1960s. The conservative voter base were Democrats at those times, what you would today associate with Republican.

This is all just crap you made up.
Democrats have always been a mixture of liberal to conservative. JFK by the way, was a conservative, not a liberal.
Congressional Republicans and Democrats of the 1960's and since didn't switch parties, and all of the segregationist Democrats with the lone exception of Strom Thurmond remained Democrats. Meanwhile, the Democrats never demoted or punished a segregationist member- they in fact promoted people like Robert Byrd to party leadership. You act like this is all ancient history. Many people are still alive that were either Democrats or Republicans during the 1960's and remain the same today.

The parties didn't switch- the Democrats have just tried to usurp undue credit for the Civil Rights movement of which they were very much AWOL while it was going on, and of which the Republican record is far better. The issues changed after the 1970's, and Republicans moved on since Civil Rights and desegregation legislation had already been passed. Democrats on the other hand, seized the noton that the Civil Rights movement STARTED after 1964,and have since just been trying to define everything they disagree with as anti-Civil Rights, like lower taxes and smaller government. Yours is the party that has only MYTHS and mischaracterizations to really fall back on for much of your Civil Rights history. Republicans on the other hand, have a better track record in REALITY.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

See crash, for me it's not about partisanship, it's about the truth. That's why I keep bringing up the lies about Bush seeing the first plane crash live and being behind 9/11.

Wait, you asked a question about Kerry, and yet you keep bringing up Bush? That's called a dodge.

As are the lies and smears about Kerry's medals.

Actually, -as I suspect you know, but are again fabricating- those are all completely separate incidents, with their own set of completely separate facts.

On Cambodia, he may have been mistaken 10 years after the fact about whether he was on one side or the other of the Cambodian border.

Haha! And 'mistaken' again 20 years later... and 30...!

He may have been mistaken about it being late December or early January.

Right, because Christmas Eve and people celebrating Christmas ALWAYS happens in January. Didn't we just this past year accidently, by mistake have Christmas Eve sometime in January? Or wait, maybe I was mistaken.

I'll say this- MAN will you defend a lie! Kerry sure needed people like you!

If he was mistaken, you haven't proven it. Kerry had not left the service by Christmas 1968. In his journal that he kept at the time, he says he was on the border of Cambodia during Christmas. The swift boats operated near the Cambodian border. His biographer says that he had missions into Cambodia in January and February of 1969. So if he says, 10 years later, that he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, at worst, he's a few weeks or a few miles off. That's not an equivalent fabricated story to a massively funded political campaign attempting to discredit his medals. Can you answer this crash: Do you really think those are equivalent?

This all makes for entertaining spin, but you still haven't grasped that no troops were sent to Cambodia until April, 1970. Swiftboats were NEVER sent to Cambodia, and they weren't used to conduct secret CIA operations as Kerry claimed- they're too big and noisy for 'top secret' missions across an illegal border. Not a single member of Kerry's comrades, even his direct shipmates has ever backed up his lie on this- in fact, several have stated that they were of course, never in Cambodia.


You continuing to make up excuses for a blatant lie is just you falling on your sword for the 'D' at all costs. It's entertaining, but again I have to ask, what's the purpose? Kerry's no longer running, so why keep it up?

[BRussell]

Sure crash.

Everyone acknowledges that the swift boats were on the Cambodian border at that exact time. Everyone acknowledges the US government conducted a secret war against Cambodia, and the bombing missions started a few weeks after Kerry's service there. Kerry and his biographer claim that he participated in secret Cambodian missions preceding that secret bombing. But crash knows that it's a lie, because Kerry is a "lurch." And that lie is equivalent to a massive smear campaign questioning all off Kerry's medals. And I'm the partisan one.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Democrats have always been a mixture of liberal to conservative.

Yes, but more of one than the other, and that shift is exemplified during these two time periods.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

JFK by the way, was a conservative, not a liberal.

He was on many issues, such as the economy and military, however, he also pushed to start the Peace Corps and helped get MLK going. I'd say he was pretty much on the fence.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Congressional Republicans and Democrats of the 1960's and since didn't switch parties, and all of the segregationist Democrats with the lone exception of Strom Thurmond remained Democrats. Meanwhile, the Democrats never demoted or punished a segregationist member- they in fact promoted people like Robert Byrd to party leadership. You act like this is all ancient history. Many people are still alive that were either Democrats or Republicans during the 1960's and remain the same today.

The 19th century is pretty old for our country's history, but I never said the 1960s were old. There are people who still hold onto their ideologies regardless if the party in general has shifted its point of view. Why would a segregationist and racist represent the views of a progressive and liberal political party? There are exceptions.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yours is the party that has only MYTHS and mischaracterizations to really fall back on for much of your Civil Rights history. Republicans on the other hand, have a better track record in REALITY.

I'm not a Democrat. The voter base for the parties did change, simply by definition of what a liberal and conservative are and what the Democratic and Republican parties represent now.

No one is arguing that the Republican party wasn't largely responsible for setting the foundation of the Civil Rights movement, other than people on the fringe. I am not arguing political parties, I'm pointing out what constituted the voters of those parties respectively.

The voter base did shift, as is supported by your wikipedia article. The majority of the south was Democratic, that is where the majority of the conservative vote was located. Up until after the late 19th century and into the mid 20th century, the conservative vote laid with the Democratic party and the progressive vote laid with the Republican party. It started to shift once more during the Civil Rights movement.

Again, I'm not arguing which party was responsible. You may be right in thinking that a lot of Democrats claim their party was responsible simply because they're progressive themselves, and they would be wrong. It was the Republican party. That doesn't change that the liberal vote, despite being aligned with the Republican party from 19th century on into the mid 20th century, is now associated with the Democratic party.

Who knows, maybe in 100 years it'll shift. Maybe Article II of the Constitution will be amended and Schwarzenegger will run for President, shifting the liberal voting base over to Republicans again.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Kerry is a "Lurch.".

No, more like Herman Munster


But than again "What, me worry?"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if the woman works harder, tenure, ot etc...should she get more pay? you know she usually doesn't.

I know she usually doesn't?

To the question; I've already answered that she should, but whether or not she "should" is subject to many variables over and above the breasts. I don't know how much my female counterparts make at work, but then it's pretty tacky to ask. What I do know is that I'd likely have to compete against her for any promotion.

If you've got some info, I'll look at it.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I know she usually doesn't?

To the question; I've already answered that she should, but whether or not she "should" is subject to many variables over and above the breasts. I don't know how much my female counterparts make at work, but then it's pretty tacky to ask. What I do know is that I'd likely have to compete against her for any promotion.

If you've got some info, I'll look at it.

well like everyone else, i can cut and paste stuff from the interweb...from infoplease.com

The Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who hold the same job and do the same work. At the time of the EPA's passage, women earned just 58 cents for every dollar earned by men. By 2006, that rate had only increased to 77 cents, an improvement of less than half a penny a year. Minority women fare the worst. African-American women earn just 64 cents to every dollar earned by white men, and for Hispanic women that figure drops to merely 52 cents per dollar.

do me a favor, take yourself out of the employee picture.

imagine you run a company and needs to hire 10 people doing the same thing....let's say.. teaching new employees the way things work...HR.

would you, should you pay the males more than the females that apply for the job?

should anyone?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Sure crash.
*blather*

Exactly when was it that you lost all ability to mount a coherent argument, based on some semblance of verifiable fact, and not just regurgitate the same blather of factually vacant talking points over and over?

Or did I just imagine that you ever had any such ability?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

and helped get MLK going.

You've gotta be kidding me. RFK -under JFK- used the CIA to spy on MLK. Now say that 10 times fast.

Thanks for a classic example of it being nothing more than MYTH that Democrats were any particular friends of 1950's/60's era civil rights leadership, let alone that JFK "helped get MLK going."

If illegally wiretapping him, trying to brand him a communist, and publicizing his affairs to try and personally ruin him is "getting him going" then you'd have a point.

Classic example of how the actual dreadful details of the real JFK have been largely replaced with the whole camelot myth and Democrat history rewrite of themselves as civil rights champions.

Do people remember how weird it was when Ted Kennedy attended Corretta Scott King's funeral a few years ago? Here was the guy whose brothers abused their powers in attempt to personally destroy the deceased's husband, masquerading as if it was HIS ilk that were the MLK champions. It was an amazing bizzaro example of how the myth has to be treated as reality among those that subscribe to it.

Why would a segregationist and racist represent the views of a progressive and liberal political party?

Someone should have asked that before making Robert Byrd the party head for over a decade. Of course, once more, it's only a myth that the Democratic Party was or is primarily a 'progressive and liberal' party. Both of the major parties are actually a lot more complex than overly simplistic labels.

The voter base for the parties did change, simply by definition of what a liberal and conservative are and what the Democratic and Republican parties represent now.

True, but you're way over simplifying. Most old-school southern segregationists remained Democrats, and there's a much wider disconnect between that era and the switchover of the south from Democrat to Republican.

Simply put, most of today's Republican conservatives have little to do with yesterday's southern Democrat segregationists, despite Democrat attempts at claiming they all switched.

Democrats have simply been dishonest about the makeup of their own party, and that of the Republican party, especially when it comes to race. Dems have taken issues like smaller government, lower taxes, individual liberty, constructionist view of the constitution, etc. and tried to turn them into racial issues. They've very shrewdly taken the modern notion of 'states rights' -which is little more than an accurate interpretation of the constitution reserving powers not granted to Congress for the states, IE: a rejection of big centralized government power grabs- and tried to tie it to the old-school segregationist version of states rights.

Most conservatives of today, would be classic liberals of yesterday- the same types that were pro civil rights in the '60s and before. That's why I disagree with the notions of the parties completely "switching"- it's an attempt by some to say that modern conservatism is out of sync with the Republican past. It's not at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Most conservatives of today, would be classic liberals of yesterday- the same types that were pro civil rights in the '60s and before. That's why I disagree with the notions of the parties completely "switching"- it's an attempt by some to say that modern conservatism is out of sync with the Republican past. It's not at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

well like everyone else, i can cut and paste stuff from the interweb...from infoplease.com

I see. You ask for links, I provide them. I ask for links, you claim anyone can copy-paste from infoplease.com which I've not done. Check the strawmen, try again.

do me a favor, take yourself out of the employee picture.

Of course. We wouldn't want a pesky little thing like reality taint an otherwise fruitless discussion.

imagine you run a company and needs to hire 10 people doing the same thing....let's say.. teaching new employees the way things work...HR.

would you, should you pay the males more than the females that apply for the job?

should anyone?

Are they of all precisely equal qualifications? Particular expertise such as Business Objects? Discoverer? PowerPoint? Excel? Access? Commitment to travel if need-be? Can they relocate? Same exact job history? Of course I wouldn't pay someone more or less contingent upon their sex. There are many factors by which pay should be gauged. Equal rights does not ensure equal outcomes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Again, I'm not arguing which party was responsible. You may be right in thinking that a lot of Democrats claim their party was responsible simply because they're progressive themselves, and they would be wrong. It was the Republican party. That doesn't change that the liberal vote, despite being aligned with the Republican party from 19th century on into the mid 20th century, is now associated with the Democratic party.

Times change, people don't. All you really seem to be saying is that if you strip an old Conservative (D) of his/her racism, segregationism, and the (D); you're left with a Conservative (R). Liberalism and Conservatism are more or less simply attitudes regarding the times. Some people are more or less tempered in their attitudes contingent upon the rate of change. Slow change begets more liberalism, fast change begets Conservatism. These attitudes move and breath throughout both parties. More has been made of Conservatism VS Liberalism to compartmentalize attitudes for a particular party's gain.

[Chongo]

more like individualism vs collectivism

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I see. You ask for links, I provide them. I ask for links, you claim anyone can copy-paste from infoplease.com which I've not done. Check the strawmen, try again.

good morning sunshine!

you asked for info...i gave it...calm down man

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course. We wouldn't want a pesky little thing like reality taint an otherwise fruitless discussion.

the key word is objective.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are they of all precisely equal qualifications? Particular expertise such as Business Objects? Discoverer? PowerPoint? Excel? Access? Commitment to travel if need-be? Can they relocate? Same exact job history? Of course I wouldn't pay someone more or less contingent upon their sex. There are many factors by which pay should be gauged. Equal rights does not ensure equal outcomes.

sigh... yes there are many factors but should gender be one of them?

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Dems have taken issues like smaller government, lower taxes, individual liberty, constructionist view of the constitution, etc. and tried to turn them into racial issues. They've very shrewdly taken the modern notion of 'states rights' -which is little more than an accurate interpretation of the constitution reserving powers not granted to Congress for the states, IE: a rejection of big centralized government power grabs- and tried to tie it to the old-school segregationist version of states rights.

Most conservatives of today, would be classic liberals of yesterday- the same types that were pro civil rights in the '60s and before. That's why I disagree with the notions of the parties completely "switching"- it's an attempt by some to say that modern conservatism is out of sync with the Republican past. It's not at all.

I agree that the Democrats have played it well, though I wouldn't go so far as to call it dishonest. And if you ask G. W. Bush today what "states rights" meant in Reagan's campaign, he'll lie about it. So the Republicans need to come clean themselves. (I have no idea what he'll think it means today, I guess that states shouldn't have any rights? [E.g., CA and the EPA.])

I think you yourself are a bit confused if you still think that "small government" is a conservative policy. No, it is yet another code phrase, meaning bigger government than ever before but with an emphasis toward defense and large corporations. "Lower taxes" means lower taxes for the rich, and less progressive taxes overall. Etc. etc. The code phrases of conservatism are not necessarily correlated with the policies of conservatism. If you really believe that these code phrases honestly describe conservatism, then you also need to acknowledge that they have nothing to do with the modern Republican party (in which case it is irrelevant to the Republican/Democrat question).

[Chongo]

targeted tax cuts=tax increases for all. One of Bill Clinton's '92 campaign promises was a middle class tax cut. In Business Week, July 6, 1992, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I began the campaign, the projected deficit was $250 billion. Now its up to $400 billion. (and was promising a middle class tax cut)
But then he said on Feb. 10, 1993, "The deficit of this country is about $50 billion a year bigger than I was told it was going to be before the election." --our President said this after "discovering" that the deficit was $290 billion, $110 Billion LESS than he had claimed in July! (no middle class tax cut) Congress then passed and he signed, a tax increase on everyone. Hillary and Obama will do the same.
The progressive tax is one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifest
Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Done
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (death tax)
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Done
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (FCC/ICC)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. (done) Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form.(does this mean Marx was not opposed to child labor, only in it's form at that time?) Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

[tie]

Chongo, I have no idea what you are talking about. Clinton '92? You seem to have some big conspiracy theory in mind. Watch out, the bogeymen are coming!