Auto-SummaryThe post discusses the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and its purpose of providing support for abused women through government-funded classes and facilities. The author criticizes the constitutionality of forcing taxpayers to pay for these clinics. The post also includes statistics about gender wage disparity, arguing that the numbers do not fully capture the complexities of the issue. The author questions the effectiveness of universal healthcare, citing Michael Moore's book and statistics. Finally, the author references the 14th amendment, asserting that government should not be involved in marriage, including same-sex marriage.
Quote:
Well, I think we all know the percentage of men getting abused and murdered by women is far less then the men who abuse and murder women.
What's your point? I'm fairly certain the amount of blacks who commit violent crime against asians is higher than the amount of asians who commit violent crimes against blacks. Following your logic train the blacks should be punished more severely.
Quote:
I was wrong about the increased prison time... just a dream. Sorry, from personal experiences I am bitter towards men who hit woman.
Better things to be dreaming. Apology accepted though =D
Quote:
Anyways, what Nader wants is to support the Violence against women act. You can find some more information at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/ and http://www.now.org/issues/violence/vawa/vawa1998.html, basically it provides government funded classes and facilities for abused and battered woman. It'll also provide various family services, such as family,group and individual therapy and anger management classes. The woman who allow themselves to be abused don't do it because they are too stupid to leave , they allow it because they have low self esteem and the men who do it to them also have physiological problems. So, instead of sticking the guy in jail and expecting them to just *know* how to get on, this act would give them the ability to learn how to change. Very useful in preventing repeat offenders.
I hate to bust out the constitution card again but it's one of my favorites. The constitution delegates to the federal government no such power that allows them to set up clinics for this function. I would not be opposed to such training and classes for prisoners but forcing me to pay for these clinics is unconstitutional.
Quote:
Here are some statics I found, in 2000 Women's earnings adverage 76 cents for every 1$ earned by men, lifetime loss of 650,133.
Heres a quote from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html
"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 2001, nearly 40 years later, that rate had only increased to 76 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." Thats fucking patheic, if women earned as much as men the poverty level would be "cut in half".. its a short article you should read it...
For a woman to make as much as her male counterpart she would have to work the entire year plus an extra 4 months.
Those numbers on their own are almost definitely true. They do not, however, take into account the ridiculous amount of other factors at work. Find me numbers for the amount of caucasian males V. caucasian females V. black males V. black females V. hispanic males, etc. that have phD's, masters degrees, a general college education, a high school diploma, etc. The KIND of jobs women and men take also play a role. There are a tremendous amount of women in the nursing and teaching professions relative to the amount of men in them. These positions generally pay less than notoriously male dominated jobs such as truck driver, construction worker, etc. I do not claim to be an authority on this so I may very well be off. I also do not claim that NO gender discrimination exists...merely that these numbers do not tell the whole truth.
Quote:
Well, he wouldn't be the first.
No excuse. At all.
Quote:
heres a quote from the Nader site. It seems like his version is a little more realistic. I think he just wants to provide every american with health insurance for a reasonable rate.
"Health Care Universally Available
We need to get the insurance companies out of administering health care, increase patient choice, expand coverage and save money. The United States spends far more on health care per capita than any other country in the world, but more than 45 million Americans have no health insurance. A single-payer program, with full medical coverage, should provide health care that provides comprehensive benefits with quality care and cost controls to all Americans throughout their lives."
I like how he throws save money up there. The trillions of dollars the fool politicians in washington are tossing around now with their failing long-term medicare schemes would be DWARFED by a universal healthcare plan such as Ralphie proposes. I assure you, Universal Healthcare no matter how many rainbows your dream candidate draws around it, DOES NOT WORK..EVER.
Quote:
Heres 3 statistics quoted in Stupid White Men by Michael Moore pg 52, yes I know he's a known left wing political author, but his facts so far have been proven factual everytime I check.
There are multiple threads up regarding Moore right now, suffice to say, he is one of the more deceptive motherfuckers on the planet today. Moore makes a living out of twisting and distorting the words and actions of others to suit his point of view at a given moment. Check out pinksharmark's thread near the top of the front page linking to a scathing review by a liberal of the lies rampant in Moore's new movie.
Quote:
I shall quote the 14th amendment
Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pertection off the laws.
I've read it 4 times not once did I see, "except gays". You'd think that would be enough... guess not.
I'll repeat, Government should not be involved in marriage...at all. Government for a sizeable period in our history had nothing to do with marriage. They only started issuing licenses because of the interracial marriages that became more frequent in the 19th century. Politicians somewhere thought this'd be an excellent way to swindle some more money out of people so they made marriage licenses universal. If the choice is between gays being granted marriage recognition and not, I would absolutely be in favor of their marriages being recognized if some church has legally married them. I would much prefer if we could get government out of this entire ordeal, however.
--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Feminized Cannabis Seeds 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
silversoul7 
Phred 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
Teiro
wingnutx
1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms
mabus