I don't generally pay much attention to politics, but due to boredom and youtube links appearing on my facebook, I have found myself looking quite in-depth into the candidates for the upcoming 2012 presidential election.

I wanted to gain more knowledge and a wider view of the opinions circulating, so I thought I would make this thread. If there are any big areas of discussion you would like to talk about, share your opinion on, and share videos with the opinions of the candidates on, I will post them here below this line for discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • United States Budget/Economic Crisis
  • Don't Ask Don't Tell (Gay Rights)
  • Abortion
  • Drugs
  • Education
  • Environmental Issues
  • Foreign Policy
  • Government Reform
  • Health Care
  • Immigration
  • Jobs/Unemployment
2134
2,616visits
0viewing
deletedMar 16, 2012
CanadaSan says
because they didn't set up legal stuff to stop upper class straight white dudes from freely being douchebags to everybody else.


Except I am not a douchebag to people. Expecting people to be responsible for their actions is not being a "douchebag"

Now if you want to see a douchebag lets talk about Sandra Fluke.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html

------
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.
-----

So lets see she decided to attend Georgetown Law School (read, she is privileged), and picked it at least in part so she could bitch about its lack of birth control coverage. Now THAT is a douchebag.
deletedMar 16, 2012
CoryInTheHouse says
http://www.epicmafia.com/topic/36384
lol i just found this
10/10 troll


So forcing people to vote for certain candidates is not opposed to democracy :/
deletedMar 16, 2012
Condoms are the male equivalent of birth control though. Penis is eternal, vaginal is internal. There's no pill form for birth control for men because it's unecessary. Two different reproductive systems require different birth control. Why make a man take a pill when all he has to is prevent his semen from impregnating a woman with a condom. This topic of men paying for birth control is simply sexist because they're cheaper to provide birth control for. Condoms are provided and paid for by federal funding, wsteyer is just pissed off because women have vaginas which require more expensive treatment. we can't change our uteruses no matter how hard we try.
deletedMar 16, 2012
bleached says
Condoms are the male equivalent of birth control though. Penis is eternal, vaginal is internal. There's no pill form for birth control for men because it's unecessary. Two different reproductive systems require different birth control. Why make a man take a pill when all he has to is prevent his semen from impregnating a woman with a condom. This topic of men paying for birth control is simply sexist because they're cheaper to provide birth control for. Condoms are provided and paid for by federal funding, wsteyer is just pissed off because women have vaginas which require more expensive treatment. we can't change our uteruses no matter how hard we try.


Condoms are not free. You can go to walgreens and see for yourself. And if its cheaper to provide for that is an argument on making it free for men. And considering that birth control pills are $9/month at walmart, you argument kinda fails.

And I am "pissed" at people who want to sit at the big boy table when they still drink from a sippy cup.
CanadaSanMar 17, 2012
The day women and minorities won't need support to get to the big table is the day when mainstream North American society isn't discriminatory towards them, and doesn't choose other white males over women and racial minorities regularily because of their subconciously trained beliefs of women's differant IQ or why black people have shoved themselves into their own situation. (Studies have shown that people are prone to viewing women/black men's work as 20% less good than a dudes work (even when the work is identical) and that if you want to succeed as a woman, you need to do 3x the amount of work men have done to get to the same position. This is especially the case in acedemia, and women that changed their names to guys names for studies suddenly faced no more problems in gaining acceptance and recognition.)

As it is, don't be pissed over silly things. Minorities have a harder time getting to the big seat right now, and they need all the help they can get. It's not because they are spoiled or inferior, it's because society is very discriminatory to them and makes life harder for them, and the government is trying to even the playing field abit. Unfortunately, even today it's not great.

Oh yeah, but the 1950's were a great time of fairness and equality~
ClarkeboiMar 17, 2012
lmao wsteyer getting fucking wrecked
deletedMar 17, 2012
CanadaSan says
and that if you want to succeed as a woman, you need to do 3x the amount of work men have done to get to the same position.


bullshit. You just made that up

CanadaSan says

As it is, don't be pissed over silly things. Minorities have a harder time getting to the big seat right now, and they need all the help they can get. It's not because they are spoiled or inferior, it's because society is very discriminatory to them and makes life harder for them, and the government is trying to even the playing field abit. Unfortunately, even today it's not great.


bullshit. http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/income-race-and-ethnicity-0

Note which race is at the top. Hint its not white.
CanadaSanMar 17, 2012
Really now? So I made that up?

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2003/10/10/some-evidence-of-discrimination-wage-gap-series-part-9/

If you have the attention span, use the footnotes to find the actual studies. There was also the woman/male names-study and one contrasting the amount of skill woman generally need to show in areas which I found in a psychology text/assignment a year ago. I'll try to use google to find an online version of the studies that it was referring to when I'm more awake.

Also, before you bring up the mid-90s-early 2000s dates on those studies, keep in mind that things haven't changed that much in terms of the gender/racial gap in the past 20 years.

And as for the racial chart...so? Those same studies on race found that Asians didn't recieve nearly the same levels of judgementalism and devaulation that blacks and first nations did. (Although they did recieve some.) That, and the Asian community as a whole is a lot higher educated then the American white community, so it makes sense they'd be doing so well off.

So basically, thanks for supporting my point.
deletedMar 17, 2012
CanadaSan says
Really now? So I made that up?

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2003/10/10/some-evidence-of-discrimination-wage-gap-series-part-9/

If you have the attention span, use the footnotes to find the actual studies. There was also the woman/male names-study and one contrasting the amount of skill woman generally need to show in areas which I found in a psychology text/assignment a year ago. I'll try to use google to find an online version of the studies that it was referring to when I'm more awake.

Also, before you bring up the mid-90s-early 2000s dates on those studies, keep in mind that things haven't changed that much in terms of the gender/racial gap in the past 20 years.

And as for the racial chart...so? Those same studies on race found that Asians didn't recieve nearly the same levels of judgementalism and devaulation that blacks and first nations did. (Although they did recieve some.) That, and the Asian community as a whole is a lot higher educated then the American white community, so it makes sense they'd be doing so well off.

So basically, thanks for supporting my point.


So apparently racists are only racist against black/hispanic people but not asians :/
deletedMar 17, 2012
they were able to examine the wage gap while matching men and women for many other possible explanatory factors – not only “occupation, age, experience, education, and time in the workforce,” but also childcare, average hours worked, grades while in college, and other factors.

The result? Even after accounting for all that, women still are paid only 81.5% of what men “with similar demographic characteristics, family situations, work hours, and work experience” are paid.
-----------------------
And did they account for choices in which firms they worked for?
deletedMar 17, 2012
Discrimination against female consumers.

Most research on economic discrimination has been concentrated on work and working. However, there are other kinds of economic discrimination which should be considered, such as discrimination against consumers. In her book Why Women Pay More, Frances Cerra Whittelsey detailed many examples of women being charged more than men for the same products and services (for example, for dry-cleaning a plain cotton shirt).

Whittelsey’s book in some ways implies that part of the problem is that women may not negotiate as well as men (for instance, she includes some good advice on how to negotiate prices when buying a car). Professor Ian Ayres, of the Northwestern University School of Law, used audit testing to examine this question.[8] Testers of different sexes and races were trained to use a single, uniform negotiating strategy for all car negotiations. Professor Ayres measured both initial offers, before any negations had begun, and final outcomes of negotiations.

The results? White men consistently got far better deals than white women, black women or black men – even though all of them used the same negotiating strategy. According to Professor Ayres, “white women had to pay forty percent higher markups than white men; black men had to pay more than twice the markup; and black women had to pay more than three times the markup of white male testers.” A black woman walking into a car dealership, and negotiating just the same as a white man, ends up paying $900 more for her car.
------------------------------

What was the race/gender of the salesperson? Perhaps people negotiate differently with someone like them?

Also, it appears that it only measure initial offer vs. outcome.

Perhaps women simply recived a better initial offer.
deletedMar 17, 2012
And please explain this graph to me:

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/employment/unemployment_men_women.gif

If a business can hire a woman to do a job at 80% of the cost of a man. Why is the unemployment rate for men falling, but not for women?

Do companies hate making money?
deletedMar 17, 2012
And this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/14iht-letter14.html

How is this possible?

"And a study shows that in most U.S. cities, single, childless women under 30 are making an average of 8 percent more money than their male counterparts, with Atlanta and Miami in the lead at 20 percent. "
deletedMar 17, 2012!
wsteyer says
bleached says
Condoms are the male equivalent of birth control though. Penis is eternal, vaginal is internal. There's no pill form for birth control for men because it's unecessary. Two different reproductive systems require different birth control. Why make a man take a pill when all he has to is prevent his semen from impregnating a woman with a condom. This topic of men paying for birth control is simply sexist because they're cheaper to provide birth control for. Condoms are provided and paid for by federal funding, wsteyer is just pissed off because women have vaginas which require more expensive treatment. we can't change our uteruses no matter how hard we try.
Condoms are not free. You can go to walgreens and see for yourself. And if its cheaper to provide for that is an argument on making it free for men. And considering that birth control pills are $9/month at walmart, you argument kinda fails. And I am "pissed" at people who want to sit at the big boy table when they still drink from a sippy cup.
I pay 30$ a month for birth control because my insurance fucking sucks. If you mosey on down to Planned Parenthood or the likes you will receive condoms FOR FREE. They didn't show up there magically. And I'm pissed at you making a table at which you have NO PLACE.
deletedMar 17, 2012
bleached says

I pay 30$ a month for birth control because my insurance fucking sucks. If you mosey on down to Planned Parenthood or the likes you will receive condoms FOR FREE. They didn't show up there magically. And I'm pissed at you making a table at which you have NO PLACE.


Wait, so birth control is covered by insurance afterall! And I imagine it is treated the same as *GASP* any other medication you might take.

Also, you do realize that birth control can be purchased from Walmart for $9/month.
deletedMar 17, 2012
Are you aware that condoms are free at Planned Parenthood?

Hey, point of curiousity... Are you for or against abortion? From what I gathered you're for it...but I would like to know.
IAMCOPMar 17, 2012
wsteyer says
And please explain this graph to me:

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/employment/unemployment_men_women.gif

If a business can hire a woman to do a job at 80% of the cost of a man. Why is the unemployment rate for men falling, but not for women?

Do companies hate making money?


A key word on that graph is "seasonally adjusted". Do you know what seasonally adjusted means? That means an Economics major (like me) has decided to take it upon himself to boost numbers based on seasonal jobs like life guards, snow plowing, and etc. to CHANGE THE GRAPH HOWEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS.

There is no precise way of seasonal adjustment. Actually, there's pretty much nothing precise from what I've seen in Economics.

That graph is not a very interesting one for anyone who has an economics background. Do you know that unemployment doesn't include people who have been discouraged from actively seeking a job? If you haven't put in an application for more than (i think) a month, you are no longer counted as unemployed. You have technically left the labor market. The fact that women's unemployment didn't go as high as men's is because men were let go, and women cost less, and were not widespread let go as men. The reason why men's unemployment numbers are going down now could be because they stopped looking for jobs. Probably those lazy black people that wsteyer always brings up.
deletedMar 17, 2012
bleached says
Are you aware that condoms are free at Planned Parenthood?

Hey, point of curiousity... Are you for or against abortion? From what I gathered you're for it...but I would like to know.


I dont want kids to starve. An unwanted child is an abused child. So yes I am for it.
deletedMar 17, 2012
IAMCOP says
wsteyer says
And please explain this graph to me:

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/employment/unemployment_men_women.gif

If a business can hire a woman to do a job at 80% of the cost of a man. Why is the unemployment rate for men falling, but not for women?

Do companies hate making money?


A key word on that graph is "seasonally adjusted". Do you know what seasonally adjusted means? That means an Economics major (like me) has decided to take it upon himself to boost numbers based on seasonal jobs like life guards, snow plowing, and etc. to CHANGE THE GRAPH HOWEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS.

There is no precise way of seasonal adjustment. Actually, there's pretty much nothing precise from what I've seen in Economics.

That graph is not a very interesting one for anyone who has an economics background. Do you know that unemployment doesn't include people who have been discouraged from actively seeking a job? If you haven't put in an application for more than (i think) a month, you are no longer counted as unemployed. You have technically left the labor market. The fact that women's unemployment didn't go as high as men's is because men were let go, and women cost less, and were not widespread let go as men. The reason why men's unemployment numbers are going down now could be because they stopped looking for jobs. Probably those lazy black people that wsteyer always brings up.


I am familiar with the difference between the U6 and U3 unemployment numbers. The graph is showing U3 unemployment.

Fine, look at this graph then:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/02/news/economy/men_women_jobs/index.htm

Note how the number of employed men has increased at the same time the unemployment rate for men decreased.

Now, also realized that are many unemployed women. So, why are companies not hiring these women which would allow them to extract great savings on labor. Do companies hate making money?
deletedMar 17, 2012
wsteyer says
bleached says
Are you aware that condoms are free at Planned Parenthood?

Hey, point of curiousity... Are you for or against abortion? From what I gathered you're for it...but I would like to know.


I dont want kids to starve. An unwanted child is an abused child. So yes I am for it.


Planned parenthood is a charity.

I believe they also have reduced price birth control.
Which Presidential Candidate do you support?